Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM no. 1949/19 in
Summary Suit no. 584/2018 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1949 OF 2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.584 OF 2018
M/s. B.D. Impex Pvt. Limited
Having its office at 207,
Bharat Chambers, 12C, Baroda Street,
Masjid, Mumbai 400 009. ...Plaintiff
V/s
Mr. Vitthal Akkar, Sole Proprietor of
M/s V.K. Enterprises
Having its address at M2/1 MIDC,
Walunj, Aurangabad 431136
and first floor, Shree sai Complex,
Near Bus stand, Jalna 431203 ..Defendant
Coram : His Honour Judge Shri Mahesh S. Lone
(C.R. No.28)
Dated : 03/07/2019
Adv. Manoj Agre for plaintiff.
Adv. Bangdar for defendant.
ORDER
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the defendant for
setting aside without reply order dated 19.11.2018 and permitting
defendant to file written statement.
-- 1 of 4 --
NM no. 1949/19 in
Summary Suit no. 584/2018 1
2. Heard Ld. Counsel for defendant and Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff.
3. Following points are arose for my determination. Points and
determination are as under ;
Sr. No. Points Determination
1. Whether there is sufficient cause Yes.
to set aside order of without
reply ?
2. What order ? As per final order
Reasons
As to point no. 1 and 2
4. The Ld counsel for defendant has submitted that on
19.11.2018 defendant alongwith his advocate appeared before the
court at afternoon but in the meantime without reply order was passed.
Therefore, this notice of motion to set aside that order.
5. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that defendant and his
advocate were present on 19.11.2018. They had knowledge of without
written statement order on 19.11.2018 inspite of that they had filed
this notice of motion on 03.06.2019. The limitation to set aside without
reply order is 30 days. The defendant has not claimed any condonation
-- 2 of 4 --
NM no. 1949/19 in
Summary Suit no. 584/2018 1
of delay nor they have explained why was such delay. Therefore,
application be rejected.
6. After perusal of record it can be seen that leave to defend is
already taken on record on 19.10.2018. It seems that on 19.11.2018
inadvertently, the order of no reply was passed. As leave to defend was
already on record without granting leave there is no question of written
statement. From the conduct of defendant it seems that it was his
impression that leave to defend was not filed and therefore, he has
preferred this application as already leave to defend is on record.
Hence, point no. 1 is answered is affirmative and following order is
passed.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion no.1949/19 is allowed.
2. The leave to defend is taken on record.
3. Notice of Motion no.1949/9 is disposed of accordingly.
(Mahesh S. Lone)
Judge,
03/07/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Date of Dictation : 03/07/19.
Date of Transcription : 03/07/19.
Date of signature :03/07/19.
-- 3 of 4 --
NM no. 1949/19 in
Summary Suit no. 584/2018 1
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload
Date
Upload Time Name of Typist
03.07.2019 3. 35 p.m. Mrs.Snehal S. Nagotkar
Name of the Judge (With
Court Room No.)
HHJ Shri. Mahesh S. Lone (CR
28)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
03/07/2019
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed
by P.O. on
03/07/2019
JUDGEMENT/ORDER
uploaded on
03/07/2019
-- 4 of 4 --