Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2389 OF 2018
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.2285 OF 2017
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Shivcharan Gautam … Plaintiff
V/s.
Rus Education India Pvt. Ltd. … Defendant
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. P.S. Gautam for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Tahir Tayyed for defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI MILIND V. KURTADIKAR
(C.R. No.20)
DATED : 19th JULY, 2019
ORDER
Defendant has taken out this notice of motion for setting
aside no written statement order.
2. It is argued on behalf of defendant that on 01.11.2017 suit
summons was received at the Mumbai office of defendant. However the
head office is at Delhi. Moreover, in January, 2018 annual general
meeting was held and then the matter was proceeded. Therefore, on
21.03.2018 when defendant appeared before the Court, no written
statement order was passed. As head office at Delhi and certain
permissions from AGM were required, it caused delay in preparing and
filing the written statement. The delay is not intentional one.
Defendant has every hope of success in the suit. His written statement
MHCC0100 7706 2018
-- 1 of 3 --
NM 2389/2018 .. 2 .. Suit No.2285/2017
is ready. Therefore, he may be allowed to place his written statement
on record by setting aside no written statement order.
3. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has resisted this application. It is
argued that on 01.11.2017 defendant has received the summons. He
appeared on 21.03.2017. It goes to show that since November, 2017 he
was having ample time to prepare his written statement. However,
defendant has neglected and avoided to file the written statement in
time. The delay is intentional one just to prolong the suit. As no
justifications are given application may not be allowed.
4. It is not disputed that on 01.11.2017 defendant has
received the suit summons. So it is expected from the defendant to file
written statement within time. Now it is submitted that because of
head office at Delhi and want for certain permission from the AGM
defendant could not prepare and file the written statement. In absence
of any contrary submission I have no reason to disbelieve this ground
put forth by defendant. Moreover matter must be decided on merit by
giving full opportunity to both the sides. The Court should not be too
technical to deprive the parties from substantial justice. As defendant is
ready to file written statement there is no reason for this Court to deny
it. Considering the delay some cost can be imposed. Accordingly the
order.
ORDER
1. NM No.2389/18 in SU No.2285/17 is hereby allowed.
2. The no WS order dated 21.03.2018 in Suit No.2285/18 is
hereby set aside on defendant paying cost of Rs.5,000/ to the
-- 2 of 3 --
NM 2389/2018 .. 3 .. Suit No.2285/2017
plaintiff on or before next date or to deposit it in the Court.
3. On compliance of cost order WS of defendant be taken on
record.
( MILIND V. KURTADIKAR )
Judge, (C.R. No.20)
Dt.: 19/07/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 19.07.2019
Transcribed on : 20.07.2019
Signed on : 22.07.2019
sbk/
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
23.07.2019 11.30 a.m. Sanjay Baliram Kaskar
(StopGap Stenographer)
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri M.V. Kurtadikar
(CR No.20)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgement/Order.
19.07.2019.
Judgement/order signed by P.O on 20.07.2019.
Judgement/order uploaded on 23.07.2019.
-- 3 of 3 --