Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM No.3169/2019 L.C. Suit No.2684/2015
CNR No. MHCC01-008625-2019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3169 OF 2019
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 2684 OF 2015
Pravin Bhagwan Worlikar )
Age – 39 years, Occ ; Business, )
Residing at 108-F, M.M. Worlikar )
House, Worli Village, Mumbai – 400 030. )...Plaintiff
Vs.
1. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai )
Body incorporated under B.M.C. Act,1888, )
having its Head Office at Mahapalika Bldg, )
Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai – 400 001. )
2. Designated Officer, )
Assistant Engineer (B & F ) )
G/Sough Ward, BMC, N.M. Joshi Marg, )
Mumbai – 400 013. ).
..Defendants
APPEARANCE:-
Ld. Adv. Mr. S.S. Redekar for the plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Kumawat for the defendants/MCGM.
CORAM : HER HONOUR AD-HOC JUDGE
SMT. C. P. JAIN (C.R.NO.06)
DATED : 24th FEBRUARY, 2020.
O R D E R
This Notice of Motion No.3169/2019 is taken out by
defendants praying to set aside & permit them to file their written
statement.
-- 1 of 7 --
NM No.3169/2019 ..2 .. L.C. Suit No. 2684/2015
2. In the affidavit filed in support of Notice of Motion, it is
averred by defendants that defendant being statutory and public body
and a vast organization, due to heavy workload these defendants failed
to file the written statement in time. Defendants were required to take
instructions from different departments and it was not possible to get
the draft of written statement approved within stipulated time.
Defendants have very good case and unless these defendants files the
written statement, the correct facts and legal position will not be
pointed out to the court. Defendants therefore prayed to allow their
notice of motion.
3. Plaintiff has resisted the aforesaid notice of motion by
filing his reply. According to plaintiff, notice of motion is not
maintainable. Defendants wants to improve their defence which is
already made out in the reply to his main notice of motion. Present
notice of motion as well as affidavit in support is absolutely vague, the
defendant failed to make out the prima-facie case for condonation of
delay as prayed for in the notice of motion. Defendants apparently
failed to explain the reasons on merits, for the delay caused in filing the
present notice of motion. For aforesaid reasons, he prayed to dismiss
the notice of motion.
4. Heard both the learned advocates and perused the
proceeding. Both learned advocates have argued in lines of the
pleadings in the notice of motion and reply filed on record.
5. I have given anxious consideration to arguments of both
the learned advocates. At the outset, it is not in dispute that in order to
-- 2 of 7 --
NM No.3169/2019 ..3 .. L.C. Suit No. 2684/2015
condone delay, defendants have to make out sufficient cause. What is
sufficient cause has been explained in the citation of
Balwant Singh
(Dead) V/s. Jagdish Singh and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 685.
Liberal construction of the expression “sufficient cause” is intended to
advance substantial justice which itself presupposes no negligence or
inaction on the part of the applicant, to whom want of bonafides is
imputable. The expression “sufficient cause” implies the presence of
legal and adequate reasons. The word “sufficient” means adequate
enough, as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended.
It embraces no more than that which provides a plentitude which,
when done, suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the light of
existing circumstances and when viewed from the reasonable standard
of practical and cautious men. The sufficient cause should be such as it
would persuade the court, in exercise of its judicial discretion, to treat
the delay as an excusable one. The party should show that besides
acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and
control and had approached the court without any unnecessary delay.
The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could
have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due case and
attention.
6. In light of aforesaid legal pronouncement, it needs to be
seen as to whether defendants have made out sufficient cause for
condoning the delay or whether plaintiff has succeeded in bringing on
record inaction, negligence, malafides on part of defendants, to reject
the notice of motion of defendants.
-- 3 of 7 --
NM No.3169/2019 ..4 .. L.C. Suit No. 2684/2015
7. Defendants have affirmed on oath the reasons for which
delay is caused in filing written statement. According to them,
defendants being statutory and public body and a vast organization,
due to heavy workload this defendants failed to file the written
statement in time. Defendants were required to take instructions from
different departments and it was not possible to get the draft of written
statement approved within stipulated time. For aforesaid reasons, there
is delay which is unintentional and not deliberate.
8. Defendants have made out reasons in their notice of
motion as to why they could not file written statement within time. As
no doubt is created in aforesaid reasons, it can be safely said that
defendant has made out sufficient cause to condone the delay. No
inaction, negligence or malafides are pointed out by plaintiff.
Therefore, Defendants have made out sufficient cause can be
concluded.
9. The observations in the cited case of
R.N. Jadi & Brothers
V/s. Subhashchandra reported in (2007) 6 SCC 420 further come to aid
of defendants in which it is observed that, Procedural law is handmaid
of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be
denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice
dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the
statute, the provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought
not to be constructed in an manner which would leave the court
helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.
Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a
lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. Therefore, the
-- 4 of 7 --
NM No.3169/2019 ..5 .. L.C. Suit No. 2684/2015
arguments of learned advocate for defendant needs to be countenanced
as against the arguments of learned advocate for plaintiff.
10. According to plaintiff, the defendant corporation is served
with writ of summons. However, there is no affidavit of service
tendered on record. No doubt defendant BMC had appeared in notice
of motion. But there is nothing on record that defendant BMC has
waived service of writ of summons. Therefore, as is objected, it cannot
be concluded that there is delay of more than 5 years in moving this
notice of motion. Considering the fact that defendant is statutory body,
and there being no affidavit of service of writ of summons, defendant
BMC needs to be given benefit.
11. However, though there is nothing on record that the delay
caused is malafide, considering the period elapsed, it cannot be
concluded that the delay is short delay. Though defendants corporation
is statutory body, law is equal for all. The mandate of Order 8 Rule 1 of
Code of Civil Procedure is equally applicable to defendants corporation.
Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid citations and Order
8 Rule 1 of CPC being directory in nature, suit needs to be decided on
merits by giving opportunity to defendants. Therefore, notice of motion
of defendants deserves to be allowed on costs. Therefore, I proceed to
pass following order.
ORDER
1. The Notice of Motion No.3169/2019 is hereby allowed subject
to costs of Rs.500/-(Rs. Five Hundred Only) to be paid by
defendants/MCGM to plaintiff on or before next date.
-- 5 of 7 --
NM No.3169/2019 ..6 .. L.C. Suit No. 2684/2015
2. Upon depositing the costs as per clause (1) of this order, the
delay caused in filing written statement shall stand condoned
and the written statement tendered on record by
defendants/MCGM shall be accepted on record.
3. The Notice of Motion No.3169/2019 is accordingly disposed of.
(C.P. Jain)
Ad-hoc Judge, (C.R.No.06)
Date :24.02.2020. City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay
Dictated on : 24.02.2020.
Transcribed on : 24.02.2020.
Signed on : 28.02.2020.
-- 6 of 7 --
NM No.3169/2019 ..7 .. L.C. Suit No. 2684/2015
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 14.03.2020, 01.00 pm.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mr. Harshal D. Jagtap
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Smt. C.P. Jain
C.R. No.06
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
24.02.2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
28.02.2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 14.03.2020
-- 7 of 7 --