Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM No.1950-19 1
Sum. Su. 1224-15
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1950 OF 2019
(CNR NO. MHCC01-005406-2019)
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1224 OF 2015
Mr. Shiva Nadar ) … Applicant
In the matter between:
Mrs. Parul Rajesh Bhula ) ….Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Shiva Nadar ) … Defendant
Appearance :-
Shri. Nilesh Masurkar, Advocate for plaintiff.
Shri. Anirudh Menon, Advocate for defendant.
CORAM :- HIS HONOUR JUDGE
S.C.PATHARE.
(C.R.NO.60)
DATE :- 02.03.2020.
ORAL ORDER
The Defendant has taken out this Notice of
Motion for condonation of delay in filing reply to the
summons for judgment.
2. It is contended that on 26/7/2016 summons for
judgment filed by plaintiff came to be dismissed. Thereafter,
defendant was directed to file written statement within 4
weeks. On 2/5/2018 court was on leave. Then on 5/9/2018
Advocate of defendant was absent due to personal difficulty.
The court passed No WS order.
-- 1 of 4 --
NM No.1950-19 2
Sum. Su. 1224-15
3. On 14/2/2019 defendant filed pursis for defending
the suit with request to treat reply of summons for judgment
as written statement of defendant. The said pursis ought to
have been treated as WS of defendant. According to defendant
no prejudice is going to be caused as reply has been served
upon plaintiff long ago which is to be treated as WS.
According to defendant delay is caused in submitting WS due
to miscommunication because defendant was thinking that the
suit is disposed off. However, it was only summons for
judgment which was disposed off by the court. According to
defendant he is having good case on merits and hopes of
success. Therefore, defendant is praying that permission of
filing pursis be given him so that reply on summons for
judgment can be considered as WS of defendant.
4 On behalf of plaintiff the Ld Counsel submitted
reply on the covering page of Notice of Motion. According to
plaintiff, in the Notice of Motion delay is not properly
explained. Further said delay is of almost six months. Plaintiff
strongly opposed Notice of Motion.
5. I have heard arguments advanced by both the Ld
counsels.
6. Perusal of Notice of Motion, reply in the light of
arguments of both the sides it shows that at the time of
summons for judgment defendant had filed reply to the same.
Therefore, it would meet the ends of justice if pursis is
accepted and said reply is treated as WS of defendant.
-- 2 of 4 --
NM No.1950-19 3
Sum. Su. 1224-15
7. Admittedly, in Notice of Motion delay is not
properly explained. However, for such technicality/ hiper
technicality Notice of Motion cannot be rejected. Considering
the grounds mentioned in the Notice of Motion it would be
justifiable to allow Notice of Motion subject to reasonable cost
to the other side. The dominant purpose of allowing such
application is to follow principle of natural justice and to
decide controversy finally on merits.
8. Considering peculiar facts, circumstances etc. of the
matter I proceed to pass the following order in the interest of
justice.
ORDER
1. The Notice of Motion No. 1950 of 2019 is hereby
allowed.
2. Defendant shall pay cost Rs.12,000/-(Rupees
Twelve Thousand only) to the plaintiff today or till
next date for causing delay in the suit.
3. Accordingly, Notice of Motion stands disposed
off.
(S. C. Pathare)
Ad-hoc Judge
City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Date :- 02.03.2020.
Dictated on : 02.03.2020
Checked & Signed on : 02.03.2020
-- 3 of 4 --
NM No.1950-19 4
Sum. Su. 1224-15
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE TIME STENOGRAPHER NAME
11.03.2020 11.47 am S.A. Shekade
Name of the Judge H.H.J. S.C. Pathare
Ad-hoc Judge (Court Room No.60)
Date of pronouncement of Order 02.03.2020
Order signed by P.O. on 02.03.2020
Order uploaded on 11.03.2020
-- 4 of 4 --