Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: C/s. 1200/19 SUM.SUIT 915/2017 1
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1200 OF 2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.915 OF 2017
(UNDER ORDER XXXVII THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908)
(CNR.NO.MHCC01-006754-2019)
Alfa Chemo Plast Pvt.Ltd. ...Plaintiff
Versus
Mag Hard PUF Industries ...Defendant
Appearances:-
Advocate Ms. Varsha Nayak for the Plaintiff.
Advocate Mr. Joshi for the Defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
DEEPAK L. BHAGWAT
(C.R.NO.28)
DATE : 28th February, 2020
O R D E R
1. By Chamber Summons the defendant requested to condone the
delay caused to file vakalatnama. The plaintiff resisted the Chamber
summons. Heard the ld advocates on behalf of both the parties.
2. Admittedly the summons was served on the defendant on
03.05.2018. However, the defendant did not appear before the court
within stipulated period of 10 days. The reasons mentioned for delay
are that the summons was received by employee and the defendant had
been out of station till 10.05.2018 and started attending office from
14.05.2018. On 14.05.2018, when the defendant opened the packet
containing the summons and the papers, he came to know about the
present suit. He approached the advocate. However, since courts were
on vacation the advocate was also on vacation and was to return in
-- 1 of 3 --
C/s. 1200/19 SUM.SUIT 915/2017 2
June 2018. Meanwhile there were talks between the parties and the
plaintiff had assured to look after the matter and to resolve the issue.
However, the plaintiff did not look into the matter. Therefore, finally
giving instructions to the advocate to appear the defendant appeared in
the matter. It is probable that since the summons was taken by the
employee, the defendant may not be aware of it and when he returned
he came to know about the summons. Further, it is of common
knowledge that in the month of may the courts are on vacation and as
such the advocates on civil side also go on vacation. Thus, the reasons
mentioned on behalf of the defendant to that extent are reliable.
However, the plaintiff has denied that it assured the defendant to look
to the matter. Thus, there is no satisfactory material regarding the
contention that the plaintiff assured to look into to the matter and
resolve the issue. Therefore, part of the reasons as mentioned by the
defendant are not acceptable. However, in the interest of justice it is just
and proper to allow the defendant to participate in the proceeding by
putting his appearance on record. The plaintiff may be compensated in
terms of money. Hence, order as follows is passed:
ORDER
1. The Chamber Summons No.1200 of 2019 is allowed as under.
2. Delay caused to the defendant to put the appearance and file the
vakalatnama is condoned and the appearance and vakalatnama of the
defendant be taken on record subject to cost of Rs.3000/- to be paid to
the plaintiff.
(Deepak L. Bhagwat)
Ad-Hoc Judge,
Date: 28/02/2020 City Civil Court,Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 28/02/2020
Signed on : 03/03/2020
-- 2 of 3 --
C/s. 1200/19 SUM.SUIT 915/2017 3
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
04/03/2020 at 1.40p.m. Mrs.J.V.Pawar
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court Room No.) HHJ Shri.D.L.Bhagwat
(C.R.NO.28)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order 28/02/2020
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 03/03/2020
Judgment/Order uploaded on 04/03/2020
-- 3 of 3 --