Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 2054-19 in Suit no. 8253-96
1 Date : 05.10.2019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2054 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 8253 OF 1996
(H.C. SUIT NO. 4579 OF 1996)
(CNR NO.MHCC01 0057222019)
Jagdish Umeshchandra Joshi .. Plaintiff
Versus
Dr. Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi & Ors. .. Defendants
Appearances :
Adv.M.G.Agre for plaintiff present.
Adv.Hitesh Shah for defendant no.1 present.
Adv.Roshan Dsa for defendant no.2 present.
Adv.Sandeep Jinsiwale for defendant no.6 present.
Adv.Mangesh Nalawade for defendant no.10 present.
Adv.Asutosh Shukla for defendant no.11 present
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. A.H.Laddhad
Additional Judge
CR No. : 7
Date : 05.10.2019
ORDER
1. The defendant no. 10 has filed instant Notice of Motion for
condonation of 159 days delay in filing Written Statement.
2. It is contended by the defendant no. 10 that on the Chamber
Summons No. 1850 of 2017 filed by the defendant no. 7, he has
been join as a party defendant no. 10 vide, order dated
-- 1 of 4 --
NM 2054-19 in Suit no. 8253-96
2 Date : 05.10.2019
04.10.2018. Therefore, he has appointed an Advocate Mr. Jay
Choksi to represent him and he has filed Vakalatnama on
02.11.2018. It is contended by the defendant no. 10 that he was
totally Dependant on his advocate. However on the last week of
April 2019, it was informed by his advocate that he is leaving
permanently India to settled in Canada. Therefore, he could not
prepare Written Statement and file the same on record. It is
further contended that, defendant no. 10 is having good case on
merit as well as on law. In the event, delay is not condoned, the
great prejudice would caused to the defendant no. 10.
3. Per contra plaintiff opposed Notice of Motion by giving reply
overleaf. It is contended by the plaintiff that defendant no. 10
failed to give sufficient reasons to condone the delay. In the event,
delay is condoned, then heavy cost be imposed.
4. Heard both the sides. Perused Notice of Motion and reply.
The reasons assigned by the defendant no. 10 is that after he has
appointed an advocate, he has left from India and settled in
Canada. In my view, the aforesaid fact stated by the defendant no.
10 is on affidavit. The plaintiff also did not seriously opposed the
application. The plaintiff only contended that heavy cost be
imposed. Thus, in view of the above fact, I proceed to pass the
following order :
-- 2 of 4 --
NM 2054-19 in Suit no. 8253-96
3 Date : 05.10.2019
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 2054 of 2019 is made absolute in terms
of prayer clause (a) to (c) on condition of payment of
Rs.5000/ as a cost to the plaintiff by the defendant no.10.
2. Cost of Notice of Motion be saddle on the defendant no.10.
3. Notice of Motion No.2054 of 2019 is disposed off
accordingly.
(A.H.Laddhad)
Additional Judge
Bombay City Civil Court
Dated : 05.10.2019 Greater Bombay.
Checked on : 06.11.2019
Signed on : 07.11.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
NM 2054-19 in Suit no. 8253-96
4 Date : 05.10.2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
08/10/2019 at 12.45 p.m. (Ms. V.V.Sawant)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
Shri A.H.LADDHAD
(C.R. No.7)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
05/10/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
07/11/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 08/11/2019
-- 4 of 4 --