Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: MHCC010066982019
CNR NO. MHCC010066982019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2438 OF 2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1046 OF 2016
Glodyne Technoserve Ltd & Ors. .. Applicants
(Orig. Defendants)
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Sona Enterprises … Plaintiff
V/s.
Glodyne Technoserve Ltd & Ors. ... Defendants
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Bhargavi Rawal i/b Rekha Shukla for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Doshi i/b Thakore Jariwala for defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. R.K. KSHIRSAGAR
(C.R.No.13)
DATED : 2nd NOVEMBER, 2022.
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Notice of Motion is taken out by the
defendants for condonation of delay in filing reply to Summons for
-- 1 of 4 --
2 NM 2438/2019 in
Sum.Suit 1046/16
Judgment. It was submitted that, defendants was served with writ of
summons and thereafter plaintiff had taken out summons for judgment.
But as the defendants were out of station, they could not give
instruction to their advocate and therefore there was delay of 214 days.
After taking instructions the Advocate for defendants filed the present
Notice of Motion. There was delay of 214 days. However the delay was
not intentional on the part of defendants and therefore, the delay be
condoned.
2. The plaintiff failed to reply and denied the contention of
defendants. It was submitted that the delay is not explained properly
and the defendants deliberately filed the present Notice of Motion only
to delay the proceeding and therefore, the Notice of Motion be
dismissed.
3. Heard Learned Advocates for plaintiff. The contents are not
reproduced. Admittedly there is delay in filing reply to Summons for
Judgment. The reason of delay cited by defendants appears to be
genuine and reasonable. The delay whichever caused does not appear
to be deliberate and intentional. The defendants want to file reply to
defend the matter. It therefore seems that in order to decide the real
controversy between the parties it would be necessary to allow the
defendants to file reply to summons for judgment. If the delay is not
condoned, the defendants will suffer serious prejudice, whereas no such
harm would be caused to the plaintiff. Considering the nature of the
suit an opportunity must be given to the defendants to file reply to
summons for judgment and proceed with the matter. The delay being
properly explained, there appears to have been sufficient cause and
-- 2 of 4 --
3 NM 2438/2019 in
Sum.Suit 1046/16
therefore, the delay is condoned. I, therefore, proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. The Notice of Motion No.2438 of 2019 is allowed subject to costs
of Rs.2000/ to be paid to the plaintiff on or before next date.
2. After depositing the costs, the delay in filing reply to summons
for judgment will be condoned.
3. The defendants shall file reply to summons for judgment withing
one month after depositing the costs.
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Dt.: 02112022 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
direct typed on : 02112022
checked on : 02112022
Signed on : 02112022
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 3 of 4 --
4 NM 2438/2019 in
Sum.Suit 1046/16
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
04.11.2022 at 05.30 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME (YATISH R. JAGDALE)
NAME OF TYPIST
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Smt.R.K.Kshirsagar
(COURT ROOM NO.13)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order 02.11.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 02.11.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 04.11.2022
-- 4 of 4 --