Order 2

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: .. 1..
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GR. BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
APPLICATION AT EXHIBIT26
IN
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.02 OF 2021
Tejmalji Darbar )…Applicant/ Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Deep Singh Bhik Singh Deora, )
2. Narendra Singh Deora, )
3. Hitendrasingh Deora )
@ Heersingh Deora, )...Defendants.
Appearances:
Adv. Mr. Rajesh Bindra for the plaintiff.
Adv. Mr. Vinod Naik for the defendant Nos.1 and 3.
CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE
ADHOC JUDGE
(C.R.No.32)
DATED : 6th April, 2022
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT26
By this application the defendant Nos.1 and 3 have prayed
for setting aside 'no argument' order in Notice of Motion No.776/2021
passed on 15.02.2022, against them and defendant No.1 also sought
permission to file reply in said Notice of Motion.
-- 1 of 4 --
.. 2.. Application at Exh.26 in COM. SU 02/2021
2. The application is opposed by the plaintiff by reply filed
thereon and contented the application is vague and not maintainable.
3. Heard the learned advocate for the defendant Nos.1 & 3
and the learned advocate for the plaintiff.
4. It is the contention of the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 that on
15.02.2022, the junior advocate for these defendants was unable to
explain the reason for not filing the reply in Notice of Motion No.776 of
2021. These defendants have strong case to defend said Notice of
Motion and therefore, order of 'no argument' shall be set aside and they
be permitted to file reply. On perusal of the record shows that on
15.02.2022, advocate for the defendant Nos.1 and 3 was absent.
Therefore, order of 'no argument' in Notice of Motion No. 776 of 2021
was passed against them. After passing of this order, later on the
advocate for the defendant Nos.1 and 3 appeared but, failed to take any
steps for argument in Notice of Motion No.776 of 2021. Later on the
case proceeded for order in said Notice of Motion. On 22.02.2022 by
taking the case on board the defendant Nos.1 and 3 have filed this
application and prayed for setting aside order dated 15.02.2022
directing to proceed the suit without argument of defendant Nos.1 and
3. Record shows that defendant Nos.1 and 3 were not diligent in taking
steps for hearing of Notice of Motion No.776 of 2021. They remained
absent for argument on 15.02.2022, which resulted into passing of
order of 'no argument'. No steps were taken on the same date by these
defendants. Defendant No.1 intents to file reply in the said Notice of
Motion. Hence, if any chance is given for filing say or argument it shall
be with costs. Considering the nature of Notion of Motion No.776 of
-- 2 of 4 --
.. 3.. Application at Exh.26 in COM. SU 02/2021
2021, I am of the view to grant an opportunity to defendant Nos.1, to
file his objections by way affidavit in reply to said motion. Hence,
considering the reason stated in the application, opportunity is granted
to the defendant Nos. 1 and 3, however, it shall be subject to costs:
ORDER
1. Application at exhibit26 is allowed subject to costs of
Rs.2000/(Rupees Two Thousand Only).
2. 'No argument' order passed against defendant Nos.1 and 3 on
15.02.2022 in Notice of Motion No.776 of 2021 is set aside
accordingly.
3. The reply of defendant No.1 in Notice of Motion No.776/2021
is taken on record.
(Rajesh A.Sasne)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 06.04.2022 Mumbai.
Dictated on : 06.04.2022
Typed on : 06.04.2022
Signed by HHJ on : 06.04.2022
-- 3 of 4 --
.. 4.. Application at Exh.26 in COM. SU 02/2021
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
06.04.2022 at 05.50 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(Mr. S. V. AMBEKAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI R.A.Sasne
(COURT ROOM NO.32)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
06.04.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 06.04.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 06.04.2022
-- 4 of 4 --