Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM In Sum.S.63/18 Oral Order 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2296 OF 2018
(CNR NO.MHCC010074102018)
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.63 OF 2018
M/s.Universal Fine Chemicals Pvt.Limited
a Company duly incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 and having office at
507, Raheja Centre, 214,
Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021. ...Plaintiff
V/s
1. M/s.Raniganj Chemical Works
a proprietary concern having office at A12,
M.I.D.C.Kalyan Badlapur Road,
Ambarnath District, Thane421 501.
2. Mr.Kishan Bubna
Sole Proprietor M/s.Raniganj Chemical
Works, Having office at A12, M.I.D.C.
Kalyan Badlapur Road, Ambarnath District
Thane – 421 501. ..Defendants
Coram : His Honour Judge Shri M.M.Umar
(C.R. No.28)
Dated : 07/07/2018
Adv. Mr.Vaibhav Shah for plaintiff.
Adv. Mr.B.Mohanty for defendant.
ORDER BELOW NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2296/18
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the defendant for
-- 1 of 4 --
NM In Sum.S.63/18 Oral Order 2
condoning the delay of 80 days caused in filing the
appearance/Vakalatnama in the abovesaid Summary Suit.
2. The plaintiff has resisted to the said Notice of Motion by
filing reply on the overleaf of Notice of Motion and has contended that
the ignorance of law cannot be a ground for condoning the delay.
Hence, it is requested to reject the application.
3. Heard. Learned advocate for the defendant has contended
that the Writ of Summons was served upon the defendants on or about
06/02/2018 and the defendants were not knowing that the filing of
Vakalatnama withing 10 days from the date of receipt of the summons
was necessary. It is submitted that when the defendants came to know
that it is necessary to appear in the said suit through pleader, therefore,
they have engaged the advocate for appearance. It is submitted that yet
the suit is to be decided exparte. It is submitted that defendants have
good defence against the suit claim of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is
requested to allow the defendants to file the Vakalatnama of their
advocate and the delay caused in filing the Vakalatnama be condoned.
4. Per contra, the learned advocate for plaintiff has submitted
that the ignorance of law is no excuse for the defendants. It is
submitted that if the Court inclines to allow the defendants to put their
appearance in the suit through their advocate after 10 days from the
service of suit summons, heavy cost be imposed on them.
-- 2 of 4 --
NM In Sum.S.63/18 Oral Order 3
5. I have duly considered the above submissions of both the
sides so also I have gone carefully through the case record. It appears
that the writ of summons was served upon the defendants on
06/02/2018 by the plaintiff and the present Notice of Motion came to
be filed on 05/05/2018. It appears that there is a delay in filing the
Vakalatnama as it is not filed within 10 days from the date of service of
Suit Summons. It appears that the defendants were not aware in
respect of filing of appearance through advocate within a period of 10
days from the date of receipt of suit summons. Therefore, by no stretch
of imagination it can be said that the defendants tried to prolong the
matter. There is nothing on record to show that the defendants
malafidely not filed the Vakalatnama of their advocate on record within
10 days from the date of Service of suit summons. Hence, the interest
of justice requires to allow the defendants to put their appearance
through the advocate by filing the Vakalatnama in the abovesaid suit,
by condoning the delay. Hence the application needs to be allowed. In
the result, following order :
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion no.2296/18 is allowed.
2. The delay caused in filing the Vakalatnama of learned advocate for
defendants is condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/
payable to the plaintiff by the defendants, on or before next date.
3. The payment of cost is condition precedent for condoning the
delay.
-- 3 of 4 --
NM In Sum.S.63/18 Oral Order 4
4. Notice of Motion no.2296/18 disposd of.
(M.M.Umar)
Judge,
07/07/2018 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Date of Dictation : 07/07/18.
Date of Transcription : 07/07/18.
Date of signature : 16/07/18
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
17.07.18 12.00 a.m. Mrs.Jyoti R.Mane
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri MM Umar (CR
No.28)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgement/Order.
06.07.18
Judgement/order signed by P.O on 16.07.18
Judgement/order uploaded on 17.07.18
-- 4 of 4 --