Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2569 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.7608 OF 2003
Canara Bank … Plaintiff
V/s.
National Roadlines & Anr. … Defendants
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Shaileja Shukla for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Vidya Korgaonkar for defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI MILIND V. KURTADIKAR
(C.R. No.20)
DATED : 06th NOVEMBER, 2019
ORDER
Defendants have taken out this notice of motion for
accepting the written statement by condoning the delay of 81 days.
2. It is argued that defendants application Exh3 for leave to
defend is allowed by this Court on 19.03.2019 with direction to file
written statement on or before 18.04.2019. The ld. Counsel on record
has not communicated this order to defendants. So also defendant was
at his native place at Ratnagiri because of some ailment. Doctor has
advised rest. Therefore, he could not file written statement in time. In
the month of June 2019 defendant learnt about said order on Exh3.
He has communicated his advocate on record who has not responded.
MHCC01 0070772019
-- 1 of 3 --
NM 2569/2019 .. 2 .. Suit No.7608/2003
Therefore he has engaged new advocate and prepared the written
statement thereby causing delay of 81 days. The delay is not
intentional one. Defendant has good case on merit. Therefore, delay
may be condoned.
3. The Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has resisted the application on
the ground that defendant was well aware about order on application
Exh3 for leave to defend. So it was necessary for him to file written
statement on or before 18.04.2019. There is intentional delay on the
part of defendant who want to prolong the matter. The delay is not
properly explained. Therefore, it may not be condoned.
4. It is a matter of record that as per order dated 19.03.2019
below application Exh3 for leave to defend defendant was supposed to
file written statement on or before 18.04.2019. No it is the contention
of defendant that at the relevant time he was at his native because of
ailment and his advocate has not communicated said order to him. In
absence of any contrary material I have no hesitation to accept this
contention that because of ailment he was at native. So also he cannot
be blamed for any deficiency of service on the part of his Ld. Counsel.
So also matter must be decided on merit to give finality to the depute
between the parties. In case of delay certain cost can be imposed.
Therefore I am of the opinion that application needs to be allowed.
Accordingly the order.
ORDER
1. NM No.2569/19 in SU No.7608/03 is hereby allowed.
2. The delay of 81 days in filing the written statement is
hereby condoned on defendant paying cost of Rs.2,000/ to
-- 2 of 3 --
NM 2569/2019 .. 3 .. Suit No.7608/2003
plaintiff or to deposit it in the Court on or before next date.
3. On compliance of cost order written statement of
defendants be taken on record.
( MILIND V. KURTADIKAR )
Judge, (C.R. No.20)
Dt.: 06/11/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 06.11.2019
Transcribed on : 08.11.2019
Signed on : 13.11.2019
sbk/
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
14.10.2019 05.47 p.m. Sanjay B. Kaskar
(Stenographer Higher Grade)
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri M.V. Kurtadikar
(CR No.20)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgement/Order.
06.11.2019.
Judgement/order signed by P.O on 13.11.2019.
Judgement/order uploaded on 14.11.2019
-- 3 of 3 --