Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: :1: N.M. No. 1835/2018 in Sum. Suit No.80/2018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1835 OF 2018
CNR NO.: MHCC010059482018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 80 OF 2018
Solution 1 Interior (India) P. Ltd. ]...Plaintiff
Versus
Cavlry the Lounge and others ]...Defendants.
Appearances:
Advocate Ms. Shetty for the plaintiff.
Advocate Mr. Gupta for the defendants.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
S.P. AGARWAL
(C.R.NO.9)
DATED : 5th FEBRUARY, 2019.
ORAL ORDER
1. Defendant has contended that writ of summons were received by
the security guard on 21.02.2018 and between the period from August
2017 to December 2017, renovation work of the defendant No.1 Hotel
Cavalry was carried out and the Hotel was closed and due to interior
wok, the security guard was also busy in day to day activities as he was
supervising the work of renovation. He has further stated that on
receipt of postal cover only on 28.02.2018, defendant could not
immediately contact legal expert due to marriage of his cousin brother
at Belgaum. Defendant has further stated that on return back to
Mumbai he contacted Mr. Jitendra Kumar Chhatwani and informed him
about the suit and then Jitendra Kumar Chhatwani visited in India in
April 2018 and decided to defend the suit.
-- 1 of 4 --
:2: N.M. No. 1835/2018 in Sum. Suit No.80/2018
2. Plaintiff has filed reply to this Notice of Motion and stated that
by the own admission of defendant No.2, defendant No.1 is a
proprietary firm and defendant No.4 is the proprietor of defendant No.1
and therefore, defendant No.2 has no locus standi to file the Notice of
Motion. It appears that the affidavit in support of Notice of Motion is
signed by defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 has stated that defendant
No.4 is carrying on business at Dubai and occasionally visiting India.
Therefore, defendant No.4 has nominated him as his lawful Attorney to
defend the suit. Therefore, it appears that present Notice of Motion can
be entertained for defendant Nos. 1 and 4.
3. Plaintiff has contended that the defendants have not produced
any proof that the summons were served upon security guard as averred
by defendant No.2 and defendant has not filed any affidavit of the
security guard on record to show the receipt of postal cover from
security guard. Plaintiff has contended that defendant No.2 has not
shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing appearance.
4. It appears that the delay of approximately 61 days on the part of
defendant. The reason stated by defendant that the summons were
received by security guard and defendant No.4 doing business in Dubai
and defendant got appeared in marriage are probable one. From all the
circumstances brought on record it appears that the delay is not
intentional. But because defendant was not prompt to take steps to
proceed with the case, plaintiff should not suffer for delay caused by
defendants. Hence, it will be proper to condone delay subject to give
cost to plaintiff. Hence, following order :
-- 2 of 4 --
:3: N.M. No. 1835/2018 in Sum. Suit No.80/2018
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.1835/2018 is allowed, subject to cost of
Rs.1500/ to be given by defendants to plaintiff.
2. Notice of Motion No.1835/2018 stands disposed of.
(S.P. AGARWAL)
Judge,
Date: 05.02.2019. City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 05.02.2019
Transcribed on : 05.02.2019
Signed on : 05.02.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
:4: N.M. No. 1835/2018 in Sum. Suit No.80/2018
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
12.02.2019 At 11:35 a.m. Mr. Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Ms. S.P. Agarwal
(C.R.NO.09)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
05.02.2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 05.02.2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 12.02.2019
-- 4 of 4 --