Final Order 2

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010084282019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3086 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 2538 OF 2017.
Usha Deepak Sapkal ]..Plaintiff.
V/s.
Maharashtra Area and Housing ]
Development Authority and ]
others. ]..Defendants.
Advocate Mr. B. N. Shukla for the plaintiff.
Advocate Mrs. Mangal Kadam for the defendant No.1/MHADA.
Advocate Mr. Sandip Bane for defendant No.3.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
MR. VAIBHAV V. PATIL
(C.R.NO.09)
DATE : 13th JULY 2023
ORAL ORDER
The defendant No.1 has taken out present Notice of Motion
for taking on record written statement and for condonation of delay of
19 months in taking out Notice of Motion.
2. It is contention of the defendant No.1, MHADA that being
the statutory body and public organization they were really overburden
with work as so many litigation were pending in this Court and in the
-- 1 of 4 --
2
Apex Court which were filed against MHADA. Sometimes the concerned
staff who has to deal with this matter were also not available and the
departmental papers were also not traceable due to heavy work of
MHADA and due to this reason delay of 19 months is caused for filing
written statement, which is not deliberate and intentional. Therefore,
prayed for taking on record written statement by condoning delay.
3. Plaintiff has opposed the Notice of motion by filing affidavit
in reply. It is submitted that Notice of motion filed by defendant No. 1is
misconceived, not maintainable and bad in law. Defendant No. 1 has
not shown sufficient cause for gross delay in filing written statement.
Plaintiff has filed suit in the year 2017 and summons was duly served
upon defendant No.1. But defendant No. 1 failed to file written
statement within stipulated time. Since no sufficient cause is shown for
condonation of delay, Notice of Motion be dismissed with imposing
exemplary cost.
4. Perused Notice of Motion with affidavit, also perused
affidavit in reply filed by the plaintiff. Heard Ld. Advocate for both the
parties. On perusal of record, it appears that defendant No. 1 though
duly served and appeared, failed to file written statement within
stipulated time, hence no written statement order came to be passed
against defendant No.1. Now defendant No. 1 prayed for condonation
of delay of 19 months in filing Notice of Motion and filing written
statement. The reason given for the same is that the officers of MHADA
were overburden with work as many cases were pending in this court
and other courts, which were filed against MHADA and concerned staff
was also not available. Though plaintiff opposed the Notice of Motion, I
am of the opinion that the reason mentioned in Notice of Motion for
-- 2 of 4 --
3
causing delay is genuine. Furthermore, in order to give opportunity to
defendant No.1 to defend and in order to decide the matter finally on
merit, it would be just and proper to allow Notice of Motion subject to
imposing cost imposing upon to defendant No.1 for causing delay in the
matter. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 3086 of 2019 in L.C. Suit
No. 2538 of 2017 is hereby allowed subject to cost
of Rs.1000/- to be paid by defendant No.1 to DLSA
on or before next date.
2. Upon payment of cost, written statement of
defendant No.1 be taken on record and delay caused
in taking out Notice of motion is condoned.
3. Notice of Motion No. 3086 of 2019 is disposed of
accordingly.
(VAIBHAV V. PATIL)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 13.07.2023 Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 13.07.2023
Transcribed on : 13.07.2023
Signed on : 13.07.2023
-- 3 of 4 --
4
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
---/07/2023 At 4.00 p.m. Samruddhi Jadhav
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court Room
Number)
HHJ MR. VAIBHAV V. PATIL
(C.R.NO.09)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/
Order
13.07.2023
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 13.07.2023
Judgment/Order uploaded on 13.07.2023
-- 4 of 4 --