Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N.M.No.2358 of 2019 Order
MHCC010065122019 Presented on : 28.06.2019
Registered on : 28.06.2019
Decided on : 26.07.2024
Duration : 05 00 28
Years Months Days
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT
BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2358 OF 2019
IN
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.910 OF 2018
(CNR NO. MHCC01-006512-2019)
Mr. Rajeev Prakash S/o Shri Kailash Prashad
Aged about 59 Years, of Mumbai adult
Indian Inhabitant of residing at Flat No.304,
3rd Floor, Akhilesh Kunj, Vikroli (East),
Mumbai - 400083 … Plaintiff
V/s.
Mr. Ashish Kumar Seth
of Mumbai adult Indian inhabitant, Residing
at Flat No.304, 3rd Floor, Akhilesh Kunj,
Vikroli (East), Mumbai - 400083. … Defendant
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE, R. D. DESHPANDE
: COURT ROOM NO. 61
DATE : 26.07.2024
Appearances: -
Ld. Adv. Gautam Kanchanpurkar for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mithilesh Pandey for defendant.
-- 1 of 4 --
N.M.No.2358 of 2019 ... 2 … Order
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
This Notice of Motion is taken out by the defendant
with the prayer to condone the delay of 179 days caused to him in
filing his written statement by setting aside the ‘no written
statement order’.
2. Heard his Advocate Mr. Mithilesh Pandey. He submitted
that in the intervening period the defendant was suffering from
viral fever and as such he was unable to attend the Court.
Therefore, he could not contact his advocate and could not submit
the written statement. There is sufficient ground made out to
condone the delay therefore, he prayed that by condoning the
delay and by setting aside ‘no written statement order’, written
statement filed by the defendant may taken on record.
3. Advocate of plaintiff Mr. Gautam Kanchanpurkar by
filing say strongly resisted the Notice of Motion. He replied that
there is nothing placed on record by the defendant to show that
during the intervening period, he was really suffering from viral
fever and as such was not in a position to attend the Court. In the
absence of any supporting documents, he prayed for rejection of
Notice of Motion.
4. Law is already settled that, the provisions of Order 8
Rule 1 are directory in nature and not mandatory. It is true that the
defendant has not produced on record the medical certificate in
-- 2 of 4 --
N.M.No.2358 of 2019 ... 3 … Order
support of his illness. But the Notice of Motion is supported by an
affidavit. As such there is no reason to disbelieve the defendant.
5. Law is also settled that, the decision should be on
merits in order to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings. If the
written statement of the defendant is taken on record by
condoning the delay and by setting aside ‘no written statement
order’ then no prejudice as such would be caused to the defendant
and the decision can be rendered on merits. Hence the following
order:-
ORDER
1. The Notice of Motion No.2358 of 2019 is allowed.
2. ‘Order of no written statement’ passed against the defendant
is hereby set aside by condoning the delay of 179 days.
3. The written statement filed by the defendant be taken on
record.
4. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion No.2358 of 2019 stands
disposed off.
DATE:- 26.07.2024 (R. D. DESHPANDE)
JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT
& ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
GR. MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 26.07.2024.
Transcribed on : 26.07.2024.
Checked on : 26.07.2024.
Signed on : 26.07.2024.
-- 3 of 4 --
N.M.No.2358 of 2019 ... 4 … Order
"CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER"
DATE: 29.07.2024, AT 12.12 P. M. Mr. Siddhesh Shankar Shirke
STENOGRAPHER (GRADE-I)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court
no.)
: SHRI R. D. DESHPANDE
C.R.NO.61.
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/order
: 26.07.2024
Judgment/order signed by the P. O.
on
: 26.07.2024
Judgment/order uploaded on : 29.07.2024
-- 4 of 4 --