Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: MHCC010067982018
CNR NO. MHCC010067982018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2099 OF 2018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1045 OF 2016
M/s. Glodyne Technoserve Limited & Ors. .. Applicants
(Orig. Defendants)
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Mr. Ashok Sah … Plaintiff
V/s.
M/s. Glodyne Technoserve Limited & Ors. ... Defendants
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Yojana Gandhi for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Ganesh Ambekar for defendant no.2 and 3.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. R.K. KSHIRSAGAR
(C.R.No.13)
DATED : 07th JANUARY, 2023
-- 1 of 4 --
2 NM 2099/2018 in
Sum.Suit 1045/16
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Notice of Motion is taken out by the defendant
no.2 and 3 for condonation of delay in filing reply to Summons for
judgment. It was submitted that, defendants were duly served with writ
of summons and thereafter plaintiff had taken out summons for
judgment. But due to the inadvertence of defendant's advocate office
staff there was delay in sending the papers to his advocate and
therefore there was delay of 66 days. After taking instructions the
Advocate for defendants filed the present Notice of Motion. There was
delay of 66 days. However the delay was not intentional on the part of
defendant and therefore, the delay be condoned.
2. The plaintiff filed reply on motion 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 both the sides. 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 defendant will suffer serious prejudice,
whereas no such harm would be caused to the plaintiff. Considering
-- 2 of 4 --
3 NM 2099/2018 in
Sum.Suit 1045/16
the nature of the suit an opportunity must be given to the defendants to
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 therefore, the delay is condoned. I, therefore,
proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
1. The Notice of Motion No.2099 of 2018 is allowed.
2. The delay in reply to summons for judgment is condoned.
3. The defendants shall file reply to summons for judgment on next
date.
4. No order as to costs.
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Dt.: 07012023 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
direct typed on : 07012023
checked on : 07012023
Signed on : 07012023
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 3 of 4 --
4 NM 2099/2018 in
Sum.Suit 1045/16
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
04.02.2022 at 05.00 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 07.01.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 07.01.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 04.02.2022
-- 4 of 4 --