Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: Daily Status
IN THE COURT OF :COURT 3 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
Case No. :NOTICE OF MOTION/0102751/2019
1.Upendra Kumar Jain 2.Sunita Jain Vs 1.Mohinder Kumar Jain 2.Satyendra Kumar Jain 3.Jagat
Bhushan Jain 4.Rakesh Kumar Jain and Ors.
Date : 28-02-2020
Business : Adv. Saurabh for plaintiff present and seeks permission to
file reply and filed application for setting aside no reply
order. Application filed on behalf of plaintiff for setting
aside no reply order. Ld. counsel for defendant no. 10(a)
and (b), 11, 13 to 15 has no objection. O-heard both sides.
Application is allowed in the interest of justice and no reply
order dated 14.01.2020 is hereby set aside and reply is
taken on record. Adv. Jadhav for defendant no. 10(a) and
(b), 11, 13 to 15 present and filed WS. Heard Ld. counsel
for both sides on NM no. 2751/19. It is submitted by the
Ld. counsel for defendants and there has been delay of
about 10 months and 14 days in filing WS by the
defendants no. 10(a) and (b), 11, 13 to 15. In this regards,
he has relied on the affidavit filed by Devendra Bhushan
Jain in support of the NM. It is submitted in paragraph no. 4
of the affidavit that the defendants were served with the
writ of summons on 24.01.2017. After receiving the writ of
summons the defendants collected the documents from the
old record in the possession of original defendant no. 10 in
respect of the suit property. It took considerable time and
after giving instruction to the counsel, the WS is prepared
and submitted to the court today. Under the above
circumstances delay of 10 months and 14 days has taken
place. It may be condoned in the interest of justice. Ld.
counsel for plaintiff has strongly opposed the motion and
relied on the affidavit of Sunita Jain, plaintiff no. 2 and
submitted that there is no substance in the grounds stated in
the supporting affidavit filed with the motion. Motion is not
bonafide. The explanation given by the defendant is not
satisfactory. The defendants have been negligent in the
matter and not entitled for any relief. Hence, motion may be
dismissed. I have gone through the grounds stated in the
motion and reply affidavit and taken into consideration oral
submissions made by Ld. counsel for both the sides. The
delay of 10 months and 14 days is substantial one, though it
has been explained by the defendants in the supporting
affidavit. Considering the facts and circumstances brought
on record by the defendants, I am of the opinion that the
delay in the present case can be condoned subject to
reasonable costs so as to compensate the plaintiff. In view
of the above, The NM no. 2751/19 is hereby allowed
subject to costs of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid by the defendants
no. 10(a) and (b), 11, 13 to 15 to the plaintiff/deposited in
the court within four weeks from today. If the above
-- 1 of 2 --
direction is complied with, the WS submitted by defendant
no. 10(a) and (b), 11, 13 to 15 shall be taken on record. NM
is disposed of accordingly. Matter stands Adj for
Compliance to 27.03.2020.
Nature of Disposal : ALLOWED
Disposal Date : 28-02-2020
COURT 3 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
-- 2 of 2 --