Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: MHCC010046462019
EXH.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.137 OF 2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1024 OF 2017
Mr. Limbaji Bhobaji Golhe ...Plaintiff.
V/s.
Bombay Intelligence Security (India) Ltd. ....Defendant.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv. Ms. Sonal Rane for Plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Arunkumar for defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. R.K. KSHIRSAGAR
(C.R.No.13)
DATED : 21st July, 2022
ORDER
1. The present Summons for Judgment is taken out by the
plaintiff against the defendant for issuing summons for Judgment. It
was submitted by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the proprietor of
workshop of automobiles and carrying business of servicing of various
-- 1 of 5 --
SJ 137 of 2019 .. J/2 .. in Suit 1024 of 2017
types of automobiles. The defendant is carrying out the business of
catering and providing various types of security services. The defendant
is using various automobiles for their business requirements. The
defendant time to time were using services of the plaintiff for washing,
lubrication and replacement of parts of their vehicles. Initially the
defendant was making the payment but since the year 2013 the
defendant started citing financial difficulties and demanded plaintiff to
raise bills. The defendant was availing the services of plaintiff for a
considerable longer period on credit basis. The plaintiff continued to
provide the requisite services. As per the services rendered, the plaintiff
raised bills which were accepted by the defendant. The plaintiff raised
a bill for a total consideration amount of Rs.3,82,958/ and called upon
the defendant to pay the same. However, the defendant failed to pay
the same. The plaintiff therefore, filed the present suit and prayed for
Summons for Judgment.
2. The defendant appeared and filed reply to the Summons
for Judgment. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and
submitted that the present suit is not maintainable as a Summary Suit
as it does not fulfill the condition laid down under Order 37 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff has not supplied the complete copy of
the plaint and the documents to the defendant. The plaintiff has
submitted false bills of maintenance and therefore, the plaintiff is not
entitled for relief. The suit is not maintainable and therefore,
unconditional leave to defend be granted to the defendant.
3. Heard the Learned Advocate for defendant and perused the
written notes of arguments of plaintiff.
-- 2 of 5 --
SJ 137 of 2019 .. J/3 .. in Suit 1024 of 2017
4. The Learned Advocate for plaintiff relied upon following
citations as follows:
1. Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.10860 of 2016 in
the case of Idbi Trusteeship Services Ltd Vs. Hubtown Ltd.
2. In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi CS(OS)297/2019 in
the case of Smt. Neelam Batra Vs. Shri V. Ramchandra Rao.
5. The Learned Advocate for defendant relied upon following
citation as follows:
1. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay in S.Suit No.1686
of 2000 with S.Suit No.1519 of 2000 and S. Suit No.1687 of
2000 in the case of Union Bank of India Vs. M/s. J. Raj and
Co. And Ors., dated 19.01.2009.
6. After going through the submissions raised by both the
parties, it seems that the plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of the bills
raised for the services provided to the defendant. The defendant had
also not denied that they were using the services of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff till the filing of the suit had not raised any dispute regarding
the quality of the services rendered by the plaintiff. However, the
defendant has raised the issue regarding the maintainability of the suit
and submitted that the bills are falsely raised by the plaintiff. It
therefore seems that the defendant has raised substantial issues which
will require trial on merits. In order to decide the real controversy
between the parties it would be appropriate to grant leave to defendant
to defend the suit. The defence raised by the defendant appears to be
plausible. Though the defendant denied the quality of the services,
however had not denied the services provided by the plaintiff.
Considering the nature of the transaction and the nature of the issues
raised by the defendant, it seems that triable issues are raised by the
-- 3 of 5 --
SJ 137 of 2019 .. J/4 .. in Suit 1024 of 2017
defendant and therefore, it would be appropriate to grant leave to the
defendant to defend the suit.
7. Considering the nature of the suit and in order to secure
the rights of the plaintiff, it would be appropriate to grant conditional
leave to the defendant to defend the suit. I, therefore, proceed to pass
the following order:
ORDER
1. Conditional leave is granted to defendant to defend the suit.
2. The defendant shall deposit an amount of Rs.1,50,000/ to be
paid to the plaintiff within 2 months from date of this order.
3. The defendant after payment of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/ will
be at liberty to file written statement on record.
4. The Summons for Judgment No.137 of 2019 is disposed off
accordingly.
5. Parties to bear their own costs.
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Dt.: 21072022 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
Dictated on : 21072022
Transcribed on : 22072022
checked on : 22072022
Signed on : 22072022
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 4 of 5 --
SJ 137 of 2019 .. J/5 .. in Suit 1024 of 2017
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
22.07.2022 at 05.05 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME (VARSHA U. PAWAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Smt.R.K.Kshirsagar
(COURT ROOM NO.13)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
21.07.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 22.07.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 22.07.2022
-- 5 of 5 --