Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2489 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.1795 OF 2018
M/s. A. R. Constructions … Plaintiff
V/s.
Smt. Sudhadevi Radhesham Singh … Defendant
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Vinod Desai for plaintiff & Defendant in C.C.
Ld. Adv. Manohar Mandavkar for defendant & Plaintiff in C.C.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI MILIND V. KURTADIKAR
(C.R. No.20)
DATED : 16th OCTOBER, 2019
ORDER
Plaintiff has taken out this notice of motion for permission
to file reply to Counter Claim by condoning the delay.
2. It is argued on behalf of plaintiff that, Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff due to oversight did not notice the Counter Claim filed by
defendant alongwith written statement. Recently plaintiff came to
know about the Counter Claim alongwith the written statement.
Therefore, plaintiff has preferred reply to said Counter Claim.
However, during said process delay of 22 days is caused. The delay is
not intentional one. Plaintiff has a good case on merit. Therefore, as
rule of natural justice it is necessary to give opportunity to plaintiff to
file reply to Counter Claim.
MHCC010 068522 019
-- 1 of 3 --
NM 2489/2019 .. 2 .. Suit No.1795/2018
3. The Ld. Counsel for defendant has resisted the application
on the ground that Counter Claim is filed alongwith written statement.
So while accepting the copy of written statement Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff has also accepted the copy of Counter Claim. Therefore, it was
necessary for him to file Counter Claim within time. The reason shown
in application are after thought and plaintiff want to delay the matter
by one or other reason.
4. It is a matter of record that defendant has filed Counter
Claim alongwith written statement. It means that while accepting copy
of written statement plaintiff came to know about Counter Claim.
However, the reason shown by plaintiff that due to oversight advocate
did not notice the Counter Claim cannot be said as after thought. In
absence of submission in contrary I have no hesitation to accept the
contention made by Ld. Counsel that due to oversight he has not
noticed the Counter Claim. So it is not a case to say that plaintiff is
intentionally delaying the matter. In order to decide matter on merit, it
will be proper to give opportunity to plaintiff to file reply to Counter
Claim. Accordingly the order.
ORDER
1. NM No.2489/19 in SU 1795/2018 is hereby allowed.
2. The reply of plaintiff to Counter Claim is taken on record
by condoning the delay of 22 days.
( MILIND V. KURTADIKAR )
Judge, (C.R. No.20)
Dt.: 16/10/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 16.10.2019
Transcribed on : 17.10.2019
Signed on : 18.10.2019
-- 2 of 3 --
NM 2489/2019 .. 3 .. Suit No.1795/2018
sbk/
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
21.10.2019 12.02 p.m. Sanjay Baliram Kaskar
(Stenographer Higher Grade)
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri M.V. Kurtadikar
(CR No.20)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgement/Order.
16.10.2019.
Judgement/order signed by P.O on 18.10.2019.
Judgement/order uploaded on 19.10.2019.
-- 3 of 3 --