Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 Order in Ch/s 870/2018
in Suit No. 3877 of 2011
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 870 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO. 3877 OF 2011
(H.C. SUIT NO. 1594 OF 2011)
Amritlal & Company
Through its Partner Mr. Hitendra Savla …Applicants/
Plaintifs
Vs.
Pravinchandra Vasanji & Co.
Bhimshi Dharshi Savla Deleted
since deceased
1. Pravin Bhimshi Savla
2. Shantilal Bhimshi Savla
Legal heirs of Pravin Chandra
Vasanji & Co. … Respondents
/Defendants
Appearance:
Mr. Jeetendra Ranawat, advocate for the plaintif.
CORAM :SMT. S.S. NAGUR,
ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
(C.R.NO.13)
DATE : 03/02/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. The chamber summons is fled by the the plaintifs
to set aside the order dated 20.01.2018 and restore the
suit no. 3877 of 2011. The chamber summons is
supported by afdavit of Mr. Hitendra Amritlal Savla, the
partner of the plaintif company. He on oath has stated
that the proprietor of the frm Mr. Bhimshi Dharshi Savla
had expired and the respondents were impleaded as party
to the suit vide order passed in chamber summons no.
2271 of 2013. The applicant relied on the advocate, who
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Order in Ch/s 870/2018
in Suit No. 3877 of 2011
was attending the matter. The applicant was under
impression that his advocate was appearing in the suit.
The applicant consulted his advocate that the suit should
have been disposed of within a year, but his advocate
informed and assured that the applicant should not worry,
as the matter is being look after by him.
2. The applicant took the help of the present advocate
in the month of April, 2018 and learned that the suit is
dismissed on 20.01.2018 for want of non prosecution.
When this fact was informed to the earlier advocate, he
stated that he will check the status and will revert back to
the applicant. The advocate informed him that due to
oversight and transfer of the suit from one Court to
another, he lost it due to oversight. The earlier advocate
was not aware that the suit is dismissed on 20.01.2018.
The applicant is not at fault. Hence prayed to restore the
suit.
3. The defendant is duly served with the chamber
summons, but he failed to appear to fle reply to the
chamber summon. Hence as per roznama dated
16.03.2019, the chamber summons is proceeded without
reply of the defendant.
4. Heard advocate Jeetendra Ranawat for the plaintif.
Perused the contents of the chamber summons along with
afdavit. The contention of the plaintif is that due to
transfer of the suit from one Court to another, earlier
advocate was not able to look after the suit and he lost
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Order in Ch/s 870/2018
in Suit No. 3877 of 2011
the proceeding due to oversight. On perusal of record, the
suit transferred from the Hon’ble High Court after the
pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court increased. The suit frst
appeared before the Court Room No. 26 as per roznama
dated 17.10.2013. Thereafter the suit was transferred to
Court Room No. 56 as per roznama dated 06.05.2016. As
per roznama dated 19.06.2017, the suit is presented
before Court Room No. 15 and thereafter Court Room No.
13 as per roznama dated 07.09.2017. The roznama in
Court Room No. 13 shows that nobody on behalf of the
plaintif was present and the suit was dismissed on
20.01.2018. The suit is proceeded ex-parte against the
defendant as per roznama dated 28.09.2016. Therefore,
due to above facts, the suit got dismissed, as plaintif
failed to remain present.
5. The chamber summons is fled on 29.05.2018. The
plaintif on oath has stated that he came to know that the
suit was dismissed in the month of April, 2018. The
plaintif has also prayed to condone the delay to fle the
chamber summons. The knowledge of the plaintif is in
the month of April, 2018. Therefore, the delay is condoned
to fle the chamber summons to restore the suit.
6. The suit was transferred from one Court to another
Court and due to that the plaintif was not able to proceed
with the suit, when it was dismissed. Hence, the plaintif is
entitled for restoration of the suit fled by him to recover
Rs. 1,73,173/-. No prejudice will cause to the defendant, in
case the suit is restored. The plaintif has shown sufcient
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Order in Ch/s 870/2018
in Suit No. 3877 of 2011
cause of his absence, when the suit was called and
dismissed on 20.01.2018. Hence, pass following order:-
ORDER
1. The chamber summons no. 870 of
2018 is allowed.
2. The delay is condoned to fle the
chamber summons to restore the suit.
3. The dismissal order of Suit No. 3877 of
2011 dated 20.01.2018 is set aside
and restored to fle immediately.
4. Accordingly, chamber summon is
disposed of.
(Smt. S.S. Nagur)
Assistant Sessions Judge
Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 03/02/2020
Transcribed on : 03/02/2020
Sign on : 04/02/2020
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Order in Ch/s 870/2018
in Suit No. 3877 of 2011
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
05/02/2020 11.30 a.m. Prachi Y. Potdar (H.G.)
Name of the Judge HHJ Smt. S.S. Nagur
(CR No.13)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
03/02/2020
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 04/02/2020
Judgment/order uploaded on 05/02/2020
-- 5 of 5 --