Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CH.S.1283/2019 SUIT 1293/2018 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1283 OF 2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1293 OF 2018
(CNR.NO.MHCC010071932019)
M/s.Bhimashankar Agro Services & Anr. .....Applicant/
Original Defendant
V/s.
M/s.Jina Machine Tools ....Respondent
Original Plaintiff
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. M.S.LONE
(C. R. No.: 28)
DATED : 1ST AUGUST 2019
Advocate Mr.Harshal Damania for Applicant/Original defendants.
Advocate Mr.Bhukhari for Respondent/Original Plaintiffs.
ORAL ORDER
1. This is chamber summons for condonation of delay of 154 days to
file vakalatnama on behalf of defendants.
2. Heard Ld.counsel for defendants and Ld.counsel for plaintiffs.
3. From the material on record following points come for my
determination and my findings with reasons are as follows:
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether there is sufficient cause
to condone the delay of filing
vakalatnama?
Yes
2. What order? As per final order
-- 1 of 4 --
CH.S.1283/2019 SUIT 1293/2018 2
REASONS
4. Ld.counsel for defendants had submitted that defendants are
not very well acquainted with procedure of law and after service of writ
of summons the defendants were searching for the advocate to
represent them. Therefore, there was delay in filing vakalatnama.
5. The Plaintiff has resisted this application by filing reply. Their
Ld.counsel had submitted that ignorance of law is no defence. The
defendants have not explained the day to day delay. The defendants
have vaguely claimed condonation of delay, therefore, chamber
summons is to be rejected. To support his contention Ld.counsel has
relied on the case of Atul Goel Vs Raghubir 2008(4)AD(Delhi)476.
6. It is undisputed that there is delay of 154 days in filing
vakalatnama. From the record it can be seen that defendants are
situated at Pune. Though ignorance of law is no defence but it can be
believed that defendants spent some time in appointing an advocate
which they thought would be fit for them and will properly represent
them in the best way before the court. The Ld.Counsel for plaintiff has
relied on the case of Atul Goel(supra) in which the Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi, observed that when defendants deliberately do not file written
statement and wanted to prolong the case, then court should not grant
any condonation of delay. That case was based on facts defendants
were not able to file written statement within time. In this case
vakalatnama was to be filed within time therefore, it is most
respectfully submitted that authority is not applicable in the present
case.
-- 2 of 4 --
CH.S.1283/2019 SUIT 1293/2018 3
7. Without taking any hyper technical view and to give fair chance
to defendants to represent and further contest the suit the delay of 154
days can be condoned by imposing appropriate cost, therefore, point
No.1 is answered as 'Yes' and following order is passed.
O R D E R
1. Chamber Summons No.1283/2019 is hereby allowed.
2. The delay of 154 days to file vakalatnama by defendants is
condoned subject to cost of Rs.5000/ (Rs.Five Thousand only)to be
paid to the plaintiff on or before next date.
3. On payment of cost vakalatnama shall be taken on record.
4. Chamber summon No.1283/2019 is disposed of accordingly.
(M.S.LONE)
Judge,
Date: 01/08/2019 City Civil Court,Gr. Bombay
Dictated on : 01/08/2019
Transcribed on : 09/08/2019
Signed on : 19/08/2019
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
20/08/2019 at 3.10p.m. Mrs.J.V.Pawar
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Shri.M.S.Lone
(C.R.NO.28)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
01/08/2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 19/08/2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 20/08/2019
-- 3 of 4 --
CH.S.1283/2019 SUIT 1293/2018 4
-- 4 of 4 --