TrustJury record updated 22 Sept 2026
Date: 23-09-2019 Business: Adv. Chitra Kavalekar for plaintiff Adv. Ram Mohite for defendant no 2 present. He filed register NM 3073/19 t.o.r. Say given by adv. for plaintiff on motion itself. Heard counsel for parties. KB LO ORDER BELOW NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3073 OF 2019 Read Notice of motion, affidavit in support of it and say of plaintiffs on it through their advocate. Heard respective counsels for parties. Present Notice of Motion is taken out by defendant No.2 to condone the delay caused in filing written statement and to take the same on record. It is the contention of defendant No.2 that writ of summons was served upon them on 31.05.2019 and in special general body meeting dated 9.6.2019 of defendant No.2 approval for appointment of advocate for defending the suit has been passed and contacted their advocate for the purpose of preparing written statement in the aforesaid matter. It is further contended that for gathering information and documents they required time and after getting the same they approached to their advocate who thereafter finalised written statement and same could be affirmed on 8.8.2019. In above circumstances defendant No.2 made prayer in above terms. Plaintiffs opposed Notice of Motion. Before dealing with Notice of Motion I would like to mention that it is a settled law that Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory and in specific circumstances written statement can be accepted with reasons. It is also held that in an adversarial system, no party should be denied an opportunity in participation of the justice dispensation system (Salem Bar Association V/s Union of India 2003 AIR SCC 189 and Zolba V/s Keshav 2008 AIR SCC 2099). Keeping in view above legal position now I consider present Notice of Motion. It seems that delay was caused to the defendant No.2 in filing written statement is mainly due to time spent by them in collecting information and documents required for drafting written statement. The reason assigned by them is sufficient to condone the delay. More so delay caused is not inordinate and it cannot be said that delay caused is deliberate. Further they have shown their bonafide by affirming written statement on 8.8.2019. In above set of facts it is unjust to deprive them from contesting the matter on merits. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the Notice of Motion in the interest of justice and fair trial. Hence, pass following order- ORDER 1) Notice of Motion No.3073 of 2019 is allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 2) Written statement filed by defendant No.2 be taken on record and marked Exhibit. 3) Accordingly Notice of Motion is disposed of. Exh.5-Written statement filed by adv. For defendant no 2. t.o.r. and marked exhibit. Matter is adjd for direction to 11.11.2019 Nature Of Disposal: ALLOWED Disposal Date: 23-09-2019
Filing Number: 108948/2019 Filing Date: 13-08-2019 First Hearing Date: 23rd September 2019 Decision Date: 23rd September 2019 Court Number And Judge: 2-COURT 02 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
Order Details: Other Pdf Text: 23.09.2019 SU 693/19 @ NM 3073/19 NM 1553/19 Exh 5 CORAM: H. H. J. SHRI.M.T.ASIM (CR. NO. 02) Adv. Chitra Kavalekar for plaintiff Adv. Ram Mohite for defendant no 2 present. He filed register NM 3073/19 t.o.r. Say given by adv. for plaintiff on motion itself. Heard counsel for parties. KB LO ORDER BELOW NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3073 OF 2019 Read Notice of motion, affidavit in support of it and say of plaintiffs on it…
TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.
