Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1546 OF 2018
IN
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.102 OF 2016
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.825 of 2015
Filament Productions (India) Pvt.Ltd. ...Plaintiff
V/s.
AMO Communications Pvt.Ltd. ...Defendant
Appearances:
Ld.Adv.Mr.Nilesh Das and Adv.Ms.Ansari for plaintiff
Ld.Adv.Mr.Ranjan Solanki for defendant
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI ABHIJEET A.
NANDGAONKAR
(C.R.No.20)
DATED :22nd October, 2018
ORDER
By way of this notice of motion plaintiff prayed for restoration of
summon for judgment No.102 of 2016 and condonation of delay.
2. In supporting affidavit to the notice of motion of Mr.Uday Shetty,
they submitted that, they have filed this suit for recovery of the amount
against defendant. In which they have preferred Summons for
Judgment and it was registered at sr.No.102 of 2016 when the matter
was pending in C.R.No.24. Thereafter, matter was transferred to
C.R.No.27 and then it was transferred to C.R.No.14. But inadvertently
when Advocate of plaintiff and defendant approached the Court for
hearing of Summons for Judgment No.102 of 2016 on 20.01.2018 it
was shown as disposed of by the Court Room No.24. In such
circumstances, it is necessary to restore the said summons for judgment
MHCC01-004818-2018
-- 1 of 4 --
NM 1546/2018 .. 2 .. Su.Suit No.825/2015
in CIS system as it was not disposed on merit, but due to the mistake on
the part of Board Clerk it was shown as disposed of. In such
circumstances, they submitted that, notice of motion filed by plaintiff be
made absolute and delay in taking out notice of motion in the above
circumstances be condoned.
3. After service of notice of motion, learned counsel for defendant
appeared and on the overleaf of the notice of motion filed their reply.
They submitted that, defendant submits to the order of the Court.
4. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. Perused the
record and submissions.
5. In view of the submissions and on perusal of the case details from
CIS system clearly shows that, during pendency of the matter, summons
for judgment pending for hearing and it was disposed of. In view of
submission it appears that, without hearing of the summons for
judgment due to inadvertence from CIS system summons for judgment
shown to be disposed of, even though it was pending for hearing. In
view of the submissions of both the counsels for respective parties, if
summons for judgment is restored on its original stage and position for
hearing, it will subserve the ends of justice and no one will suffer
prejudice.
6. The reasons mentioned about condonation of delay is just and
proper and plaintiff has explained the delay occurred in taking out the
notice of motion. As soon as they came to know about disposal of
Summons for Judgment No.102 of 2016, immediately they have moved
this notice motion. In such circumstances, delay needs to be condoned
-- 2 of 4 --
NM 1546/2018 .. 3 .. Su.Suit No.825/2015
and notice of motion needs to be made absolute. It will be proper to
direct parties to bear their costs and hence, I proceed to pass the
following order :
O R D E R
1. Notice of Motion No.1546 of 2018 in Summons for
Judgment No.102 of 2016 in Summary Suit No.825 of
2015 is made absolute.
2. Summons for Judgment No.102 of 2016 be restored in
CIS system for hearing.
3. No order as to costs.
(ABHIJEET A. NANDGONKAR )
Judge, (C.R.No.20)
Dt.:22/10/2018 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 22.10.2018
Transcribed on : 22.10.2018
Signed on : 22.10.2018
kps/
-- 3 of 4 --
NM 1546/2018 .. 4 .. Su.Suit No.825/2015
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
22.10.2018 5.07 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(KISHOR PRAKASH SHERWADE)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI A.A.
NANDGAONKAR
(COURT ROOM NO.20)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order 22.10.2018
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 22.10.2018
Judgment/order uploaded on 22.10.2018
-- 4 of 4 --