Interim Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM No. 104772 / 2023
Santlal – Asha
Order (Exh.11)
1 of 4
City Civil and Sessions Court, Mazgaon Greater Mumbai
Court Room No. 31 – Commercial Court
(Additional District Judge : Vijay S. Hingne, LL. M.)
MHCC010135462023
Notice of Motion Filed : 29.11.2023
Arguments Over : 12.04.2024
Decided on : 12.04.2024
Duration : 04 M 14 Days
Exhibit No.11
Commercial Suit No. 100533 / 2022
Notice of Motion No. 104772 / 2023
Plaintiff : Santlal Santprasad Yadav
VERSUS
Defendants 1 Asha Baban Ransur
2 Laxmibai Sachin Sathe
3 Rajesh Ramabhilakh Giri
Appearances
Plaintiff
: Adv. Ms. Prajakta Tayade.
Defendant No. 2 & 3
: Adv. Ms. Ankita Pandey.
Notice of Motion for restoration of dismissed Notice of Motion.
****************************************************
-- 1 of 4 --
NM No. 104772 / 2023
Santlal – Asha
Order (Exh.11)
2 of 4
ORDER
(Pronounced on this 12th Day of April, 2024)
Through this Notice of Motion No. 104772 / 2023,
defendant No. 2 and No. 3 are seeking restoration of their
previous Notice of Motion No. 102164 / 2023, which was
dismissed in default on 03.10.2023, by the Court.
Points for determination in Notice of Motion 104772 / 2023:
2) Perused Record. Heard Adv. Ms. Prajakta Tayade for
plaintiff and Adv. Ms. Ankita Pandey for defendant No. 2 and
No. 3. Points for determination, findings and reasons are as
follows :
Points
Findings
1 Are defendant No. 2 and No. 3
entitled for restoration of Notice of
Motion No. 2164 / 2023?................ In the Affirmative
2 What Order? ……………………... As per final order.
REASONS
Factual matrix behind Notice of Motion No. 104772 / 2023 :
3) Plaintiff Santlal Yadav preferred present Commercial
Suit No. 100533 / 2022 for recovery of .	₹ 15,30,000/- with
interest @ 18 % per annum, against three defendants.
4) In said Suit, defendant No. 2 and No. 3 preferred Notice
of Motion No. 102164 / 2023, seeking condonation of delay of 56
days in filing their Written Statement.
5) Roznama Dt. 03.10.2023 shows that, despite directions,
defendants did not filed registered copy of said Notice of Motion.
Hence, said Notice of Motion, came to be dismissed in default.
Subsequently, on same date itself, defendants tendered
registered Notice of Motion No. 102164 / 2023.
-- 2 of 4 --
NM No. 104772 / 2023
Santlal – Asha
Order (Exh.11)
3 of 4
6) Thereafter, on next date i.e. on 29.11.2023, plaintiff filed
evidence-affidavit of her witness, while defendants preferred
present Notice of Motion for restoration of Notice of Motion No.
102164 / 2023 on ground that, lawyer failed to take appropriate
steps and hence Notice of Motion be restored.
7) Vide Reply at Exh. 14, plaintiff has strongly opposed the
restoration of Notice of Motion.
Reasons as to Point No. 1 & No. 2 :
8) If any party, for technical reasons, is deprived of raising
its case, then it may result in improper adjudication. That may
lead to complexity in the dispute and may also lead to
multiplicity of litigation. If that happens, then it drags the parties
into further litigation, causing serious prejudices to them. Hence,
it is always in the interest of justice that, both contesting parties
are provided sufficient opportunities to raise their contentions and
to prove their case.
9) Considering aforesaid facts and Roznama Order Dt.
03.10.2023, then, to avoid further complexities and multiplicity
of litigation, it would be proper that, the present Notice of Motion
No. 104772 / 2023 is allowed, but subject to costs.
Considering Order Dt. 03.10.2023 and above
discussion, cost of .	₹ 5,000/- would be just, legal and proper.
10) Accordingly, Points are so answered and Notice of
Motion is allowed, by following Order :
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 104772 of 2023, is allowed,
subject to Cost of . 5,000/- ( . Five Thousand Only)
₹
	₹
payable to plaintiff.
2. Defendant No. 2 and No. 3 shall jointly and severally
pay / deposit said Cost by next date.
3. If defendant No. 2 and No. 3 pays / deposit the Cost by
-- 3 of 4 --
NM No. 104772 / 2023
Santlal – Asha
Order (Exh.11)
4 of 4
next date, then the Notice of Motion No. 102164 / 2023
shall stand restore at its stage, as on 03.10.2023.
4. Considering age of the suit, parties to expedite.
5. Parties be informed about their right to challenge this
Order and period of limitation for it.
6. Order pronounced in Open Court in presence of Ld.
Adv. Ms. Prajakta Tayade for plaintiff and Ld. Adv.
Ms. Ankita Pandey for defendant.
7. Record of Notice of Motion shall be part of main
Commercial Suit No. 100533 / 2022.
Mumbai
Dated : 12.04.2024 (Vijay S. Hingne)
Additional District Judge,
Court Room No.31 – Commercial Court
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from
Android or iOS
-- 4 of 4 --