Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 NM No.1784-2019 in SCSU No.2669-2018
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1784 OF 2019
(CNR No.MHCC01-005062-2019)
IN
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.2669 OF 2018.
(CNR No.MHCC01-011109-2018)
M/s. Nandivardhan Realtors Limited }
A company registered under the }
Companies Act, Having its registered office }
at 201, Oasis Silver Stone, }
Near Gajanan Maharaj Temple, }
Ram Maruti Road, Thane(W) - 400 602. }...PLAINTIFF.
Versus
1. Mrs. Jyoti Devendra Khedekar, }
Age:45 years, Occ.: Business, }
2. Yashwant Shankar Mistry, }
Age: 76 years, Occ.: Business, }
3. Chandramohan Shankar Mistry, }
Age: 70 years, Occ.: Business, }
All having their address at 152/A and }
35 D-12, Mugbhat Cross Lane, Girgaum, }
Mumbai-400 004. } ...DEFENDANTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None appeared for the plaintiff.
Shri.Saurabh More, learned advocate for defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI.P.P.RAJVAIDYA (C.R.NO.9)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R A L O R D E R
(Delivered on 04/03/2021)
1. By filing this Notice of Motion, defendants have prayed to
condone the delay of 58 days caused for filing their written statement.
2. Read the affidavit filed in support of Notice of Motion and
affidavit-in-reply filed by the plaintiff. Heard learned Shri.Saurabh More
advocate for defendants. Nobody appeared for the plaintiff to advance
argument hence, Notice of Motion is taken up for consideration on
merits. Perused the entire record.
-- 1 of 3 --
2 NM No.1784-2019 in SCSU No.2669-2018
3. In the reply filed to the Notice of Motion, plaintiff has not
disputed that defendants are served with the Writ of Summons on
04/02/2019. This Notice of Motion is taken out on 03/05/2019.
Defendants have contended that they could not find proper advocate
immediately due to their financial constraints and they contacted their
present advocate on 13/04/2019 which caused delay in filing written
statement. Plaintiff has contended that delay is of 70 days and
defendants have wrongly calculated the delay to be of 58 days. Plaintiff
has further contended that sufficient cause is not shown to condone the
delay and hence, Notice of Motion is liable to be dismissed.
4. Even if the contention of the plaintiff is accepted that there
is a delay of 70 days, it does not appear that the delay is deliberate on
the part of the defendants. Proposed written statement of defendants is
already produced on record with the Notice of Motion. Having regards
to it and having regards to the fact that the delay does not appear to be
intentional, this court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of
justice to condone the delay. Thus, an order.
O R D E R
Notice of Motion No.1784 of 2019 is allowed in terms of
prayer Clause (a) and (b) is allowed.
Date : 04/03/2021. (P.P.RAJVAIDYA)
Dictated on : 04/03/2021. Judge, C.R.No.9
Checked on : 04/03/2021. City Civil Court,
Signed on : 04/03/2021. Mumbai.
-- 2 of 3 --
3 NM No.1784-2019 in SCSU No.2669-2018
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
08.03.2021 at 2.45 p.m. Mrs.Rupali S. Bhor
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge(with CR No.) HHJ SHRI. P.P.RAJVAIDYA
(C.R.No.09)
Date of pronouncement of Order 04/03/2021.
Order signed by P.O. on 04/03/2021.
Order uploaded on 08/03/2021.
-- 3 of 3 --