Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2984 OF 2019
IN
S.C.SUIT NO.9406 OF 2000
Canara Bank Limited .... Plaintiff
V/s
1. M/s.Industrial & Commercial bank
2. ICICI Bank Limited .....Defendants
APPEARANCE:
Advocate Fatima Lakdawala for plaintiff.
Advocate Prajakta Sakpal for defendant no.2.
CORAM : H. H. ADHOC JUDGE
SHRI MILIND A. BHOSALE
(COURT ROOM NO. 32)
DATE : 03rd October, 2019
ORDER
Perused the contention mentioned in the Notice of Motion @
affidavit.
Perused record. Heard Ld. counsel for Defendant no.2 Prajakta
Sakpal and Advoate for plaintiff Fatima Lakdawala.
It is submitted by the defendant no. 2 by way of Notice of Motion
that the present suit is filed by plaintiff against him for recovery of
amount and the said suit is pending in the Court since 2000. It is further
submitted that the defendant no.2 failed to file written statement on
record on various grounds. It is further submitted that the name of
plaintiff and defendant bank had been changed but necessary steps
were not taken by plaintiff. It is further submitted that some time the
suit is kept for dismissal order because plaintiff has failed to take steps
in that suit. Lastly, it is submitted by the defendant no.2 there has been
-- 1 of 4 --
2
delay for filling written statement due to losing the track of suit and due
to non availability of the document relating to the details of suit
transaction and they were misplaced. It is further submitted by the
defendant no.2 that there is a settlement in between plaintiff and
defendant. Defendant No.2 is a financial institution and it is a good case
in favour of defendant no.2 . The delay cause to file written statement
in above suit is unintentional and if permission is granted to the
defendant no.2 no prejudice is caused to the case of plaintiff. It is
prayed that Notice of Motion may be allowed and defendant no.2 be
permitted to file written statement on record.
The present Notice of Motion is proceeded without reply of
plaintiff side. However, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff Fatima Lakdawala is
present before the court she submitted that the defendant no.2 is
appeared in the suit on 24.01.2007. However, failed to file written
statement on record. She further submitted that the defendant no.2 had
filed Notice of Motion without proper authorization and proper power
of attorney. She further stated that if there is a change in the name of
plaintiff bank or defendant bank this fact is not brought by the
defendant to the Court. Lastly, it is submitted that there is huge delay
and defendant no.2 failed to explain the reason for delay she prayed
that Notice of Motion may kindly be rejected.
I have also heard Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2.
After gone through record the present suit is pending in the Court
since 19 years. As per the record the present suit is filed by Canara Bank
against Defendant for recovery of amount. As per the contention of
defendant no.2 in the Notice of Motion admittedly defendant no.2 had
appeared in the present suit on 23.04.2007. Ld. Counsel for defendant
-- 2 of 4 --
3
no.2 filed their vakalatnama on behalf of defendant no.2. As per O.VIII
R.1 of C.P.C.it was obligatory on the part of defendant no.2 to file
written statement within 30 days after execution of summons and if
defendant no. 2 failed to file written statement within 30 days as per
proviso under O.VIII R.1 of C.P.C. time can be extended till 90 days if
defendant no.2 had shown and explained special reason. In the present
matter the defendant no.2 is appeared in the year 2007 if he found the
suit is filed by plaintiff on wrong title then defendant failed to brought
this fact to the knowledge of Court. Admittedly if plaintiff failed to take
steps then he has to pay cost of non taking step but defendant no.2
cited reason in the Notice of Motion that plaintiff has failed to take
necessary steps and therefore, suit is pending and they are unable to
filing their written statement within stipulated time as contemplated
under O.VIII R.1 of C.P.C. The reason which is mentioned in the Notice
of Motion is not at all satisfactory. Finally, the defendant no.2 himself
admit that he lost the track of suit and unavailability of document he
could not file written statement within stipulated time. This reason does
not support any document therefore, defendant no.2 failed to explain
delay. There is no special reason or ground to consider the Notice of
Motion. Under such circumstances, following order is passed.
ORDER
1) Notice of Motion 2984/2019 is dismissed with costs.
2) Matter is for taking steps plaintiff is directed to take steps on next
date positively. Failure to take steps on next date would be
dismissal of this suit without passing order below Exh1.
-- 3 of 4 --
4
3) Plaintiff to take note of that order.
Date:03/10/2019 (Milind A.Bhosale)
AdHoc Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr.Bombay
Dictated on : 03/10/2019
Typed on :03/10/2019
H.H.J.Signed on :03/10/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
03.10.2019 at 12.20 p.m. (Mrs.P.P.Khanvilkar)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room no.) SHRI M.A.BHOSALE
(C.R. NO.32)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/
ORDER
03.10.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 03.10.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 03.10.2019
-- 4 of 4 --