Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: MHCC010049622018
EXH.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.141 OF 2018
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1473 OF 2017
Mehta Bros
...Plaintiff.
V/s.
Jagatguru Printing Pvt. Ltd.
....Defendants.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv. Ms. Meenal Vohra for Plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Indira Jalgaonkar for defendants.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. R.K. KSHIRSAGAR
(C.R.No.13)
DATED : 12th April, 2022
ORDER
1. The present Summons for Judgment is taken out by the
plaintiff. It was submitted by the plaintiff that the present suit is filed
for recovery of sum of Rs.7,34,881/ alongwith interest from the date of
filing of the suit till its realization.
-- 1 of 4 --
SJ 141 of 2018 .. J/2 .. in Suit 1473 of 2017
2. It was submitted that as per the order of the defendant the
plaintiff sold, supplied and delivered the goods to the defendant.
However, the defendant failed to pay the due amount and therefore the
plaintiff filed the present suit. The defendant had filed his appearance
only to delay the proceedings. There is no defence available to the
defendant and therefore, the Summons for Judgment be made absolute.
3. The defendant filed application for leave to defend and
reply to the Summons for Judgment. The defendant submitted that the
present suit is not maintainable. The defendant raised several triable
issues and therefore, the unconditional leave be granted to the
defendant and he be directed to file written statement on record.
4. Heard Learned Advocate for plaintiff. Defendant failed to
argue on the Summons for Judgment. The plaintiff filed written
submissions. It seems that there was a business transaction between the
plaintiff and defendant. The defendant had not denied the business
transaction with the plaintiff. However, they raised issues challenging
the maintainability of the suit. It therefore seems that the said issues
will be required to be decided on merits. In order to decide the suit, it
would be appropriate to grant leave to defend to the defendant. The
defendant has raised substantial defence and therefore, to adjudicate
the matter on merits, it would be appropriate to grant leave to defend
to the defendant. If the leave to defend is not granted to the defendant,
it will be the defendant who will suffer grave prejudice whereas no such
harm will cause to the plaintiff and therefore, leave to defend the suit is
granted to the defendant.
-- 2 of 4 --
SJ 141 of 2018 .. J/3 .. in Suit 1473 of 2017
5. Considering the nature of transaction and to secure the
interest of 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 defendants shall deposit an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ to be
paid to the plaintiff within 2 months from date of this order for
grant of leave to defend the suit.
3. The defendant after payment of the amount of Rs.3,00,000/ will
be at liberty to file written statement on record.
4. The Summons for Judgment No.141 of 2018 is disposed off
accordingly.
5. Parties to bear their own costs.
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Dt.: 12042022 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
Dictated on : 12042022
Transcribed on : 18042022
checked on : 18042022
Signed on : 18042022
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 3 of 4 --
SJ 141 of 2018 .. J/4 .. in Suit 1473 of 2017
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
18.04.2022 at 04.35 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
12.04.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 18.04.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 18.04.2022
-- 4 of 4 --