Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: MHCC010067992018
CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2098 OF 2018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1044 OF 2016
Mr. Pranav Bhatt ] … Plaintiff
V/s
1. M/s Glodyne Ventures and ]
Holding Pvt. Limited ]
2. Mr. Anand Sarnaaik ]
3.Divvyani Annand Sarnaaik ] ... Defendants
Appearances :-
Ms. Yojana Gandhi Ld. Adv. for plaintiff.
None for defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI SHANKAR G.
BORLEPWAR
(C.R.No.13)
DATED : 10th February, 2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 took out this Notice of Motion for
MHCC010067992018
-- 1 of 5 --
- 2 - NM 2098/2018 in
Sum Suit 1044/2018
condonation of delay in filing reply to the Summons for Judgment and
to take affidavit in reply of defendants to the Summons for Judgment
on record.
2. Perused Notice of Motion, affidavit in support of Notice of
Motion and reply of plaintiff. Heard Learned Advocate Ms. Yojana
Gandhi for plaintiff.
3. Following points arise for my determination. I record my
findings thereof for the reasons mentioned below:
Sr.
No
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether delay in filing reply to the
Summons for Judgment can be condoned?
In the affirmative.
2. Whether defendant can be permitted to
file reply to the Summons for Judgment?
In the affirmative.
3 What Order ? Notice of motion is
allowed as per final
order.
REASONS
As to point Nos.1 to 3.
4. In brief, it is contention of defendants that copy of
Summons for Judgment is served upon Advocate of defendant Nos.2
and 3 on 24.02.2018. On that day defendant No.2 alongwith his wife
were out of town therefore their Advocates could not contact on
24.02.2018 with them to draft and finalize the affidavit in reply to the
Summons for Judgment. Therefore, delay be condoned.
-- 2 of 5 --
- 3 - NM 2098/2018 in
Sum Suit 1044/2018
5. In brief, it is contention of the plaintiff that there is delay of
68 days in filing reply. There are no sufficient cause to condone delay.
Therefore, Notice of Motion be dismissed.
6. Perused Order 37 Rule 3 Sub Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. As per the said Provision the plaintiff has to serve copy of
the plaint and annextures thereto to the defendant, as per Rule 2 of
Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the defendant may at any
time within ten days from such service enter an appearance either in
person or by pleader and he shall file in Court an address for services of
Notice on him.
7. Perused Order 37 Rule 3 Sub Rule 4 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. As per the said provision if the defendant enters an
appearance, the plaintiff shall thereafter serve on the defendant a
summons for judgment returnable not less than ten days from the date
of service supported by an affidavit and verifying the cause of action
and the amount classified and stating that in his belief there is no
defence to the suit.
8. Perused Order 37 Rule 3 Sub Rule 5 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. As per said provision the defendant may, at any time within
ten days from the service of such summons for Judgment, by affidavit or
otherwise disclosing such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle
him to defend, apply on such summons for leave to defend such suit,
and leave to defend may be granted to him unconditionally or upon
such terms as may appear to the Court to be just.
-- 3 of 5 --
- 4 - NM 2098/2018 in
Sum Suit 1044/2018
9. Copy of the Summons for Judgment is served upon
Advocate for defendant Nos.2 and 3 on 24.2.2018. This Notice of
Motion is dated 25.04.2018 lodged on 07.06.2018. There is delay in
filing reply to the Summons for Judgment. Considering the reasons
mentioned in the Notice of Motion for non filing reply I am of the
opinion that delay in filing reply can be condoned in the interest of
justice to decide Summons for Judgment on merit, as the delay is not
inordinate and intentional. Hence, I record my findings to point No.1
and 2 in the affirmative and point No.3 Notice of Motion is allowed as
per final order. Hence, following order:
ORDER
Notice of Motion 2098/18 in Summary Suit no. 1044/16 is allowed as
under:
1. Delay in filing reply to the Summons for Judgement by defendant
nos. 2 and 3 is condoned.
2. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 are allowed to file reply to the Summons for
Judgement till next date.
3. Costs in cause.
4. This order is dictated and pronounced in open court.
( SHANKAR G. BORLEPWAR )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Dt.: 10/02/2021 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
Dictated on : 10/02/2021
Transcribed on : 11/02/2021
Checked on : 12/02/2021
Signed on : 12/02/2021
( SHANKAR G. BORLEPWAR )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 4 of 5 --
- 5 - NM 2098/2018 in
Sum Suit 1044/2018
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
12.02.2021 at 05.55 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(VARSHA U. PAWAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI S. G.
BORLEPWAR
(COURT ROOM NO.13)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order 10/02/21
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 12/02/21
Judgment/order uploaded on 12/02/21
-- 5 of 5 --