Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 Ch/sum. no. 1576-19, in Suit no. 1949-13
MHCC010089072019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1576 OF 2019
IN
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.1949 of 2013
Anand Parshuram Baddi & Ors. ...Plaintiffs
Vs.
Vandana Mathuradas Thakkar & Ors. ...Defendants.
And
Nagesh Yallappa Pujari & Ors. ...Proposed defts.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI VIRENDRA D. KEDAR
(COURT ROOM NO.01)
DATE : 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
: Appearances:
Adv. Vishwali with Adv. Ashutosh Gole for plaintiffs
Adv. Vandana Thakkar for defendants no.1 to 4
Adv. Arun Mishra for defendant no. 9
ORAL ORDER
By this chamber summons, the plaintiffs are seeking
reliefs to bring on record legal heirs / legal representatives of the
deceased plaintiff no.3, as defendants no. 12 to 14, on record by
condoning the delay of one year, four months and fifteen days caused
in filing the chamber summons and other reliefs.
-- 1 of 6 --
2 Ch/sum. no. 1576-19, in Suit no. 1949-13
2. In short, it is contention of the plaintiffs that, plaintiff
no.3 expired on 08/01/2018 during pendency of the suit. When the
matter was listed for filing affidavit of examinationinchief of the
plaintiff’s witnesses, plaintiffs have detailed interaction with their
learned Advocate some where in April, 2019, then the plaintiff no.6
had informed to the learned advocate about death of the plaintiff
no.3. Therefore the learned advocate informed to the plaintiffs that, it
is necessary to bring on record legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff
no.3.
3. It is further contention of the plaintiff no.6 that,
thereafter he inquired about the willingness of the legal heirs
/representatives of the deceased plaintiff no.3 to join in the present
proceedings. However they expressed their inability, due to far away
places of residents. It is further contended that, for want of
knowledge of the necessity to bring on record the legal heirs / legal
representatives of the deceased plaintiff no.3, the plaintiffs could not
moved an application in time and thus delay of one years, four
months and fourteen days has been caused. It is not an intentional
and deliberate. It is bonafide one. Hence, the chamber summons may
kindly be allowed.
4. The defendants no.1 to 4 strongly opposed the chamber
summons by filing reply on affidavit. It is contended that the chamber
summons is misconceived, bad in law and not maintainable. Thus
same is liable to be dismissed.
-- 2 of 6 --
3 Ch/sum. no. 1576-19, in Suit no. 1949-13
5. It is further contended that, the chamber summons filed
by the plaintiffs is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. The
plaintiffs miserably failed to assign any sufficient reasons for causing
delay in filing above chamber summons. The plaintiffs have not
approached the Court with clean hands. Plaintiffs inspite of having
knowledge about the death of the deceased plaintiff no.3, have not
taken any steps to bring legal heirs/ legal representative of the
deceased on record within time, hence the chamber summons may
kindly be dismissed with cost.
6. Defendant no.1 strongly opposed the chamber summons
by filing reply on affidavit. She also opposed the chamber summons
on same ground. It is contended that the chamber summons being
devoid of substance and merit, is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard the learned advocate for the plaintiffs and
defendants at length. The learned advocate for defendants no. 1 to 4
has filed written submissions. Perused the record.
8. Following points arise for my determination to which I
have recorded my findings with reasons as follows:
Sr.
No.
Points Determination.
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the
reliefs sought in the Chamber Summons ?
No
2. What order ? As per final
order
-- 3 of 6 --
4 Ch/sum. no. 1576-19, in Suit no. 1949-13
REASONS
As to point no. 1:
9. It is contention of the plaintiff that, during pendency of
the suit, plaintiff no.3 died on 08/01/2018. The plaintiff has filed the
photocopy of death certificate. Upon perusal of the same, it reveals
that plaintiff no.3 Sunanda Nagraj Pujari died on 08/01/2018. It is
pertinent to note that plaintiffs no where disputed that they are not
knowing about the death of the plaintiff no.3 or about the legal
heirs / legal representative of the deceased. The plaintiffs have raised
the ground of want of knowledge. It is well settled that, ignorance of
law is no ground for excuse. The plaintiffs are represented by an
advocate. Therefore it is necessary for plaintiffs to inform this fact to
their advocate.
10. It is to be seen that, the present chamber summons has
been filed after delay of period of one year, four months and fourteen
days. Except the ground of want of knowledge, no other sufficient
ground has been raised by the plaintiff. Thus mere ignorance of law
is not just ground for showing sufficient cause for condoning the
delay. The party which is negligent and does not present bonafide
case is not entitled for seeking the condonation of delay caused in
filing chamber summons without affording justifiable and sufficient
cause. Therefore in my view the plaintiffs have failed to made out
case for condoning the delay and to bring Legal representative of the
deceased plaintiff no.3 on record. Hence I answer to the point no.1 is
in negative.
-- 4 of 6 --
5 Ch/sum. no. 1576-19, in Suit no. 1949-13
As to point no.2:
11. In view of my above discussions, I pass the following
order:
ORDER
Chamber summons no. 1576/19 is rejected.
Chamber summons is disposed of accordingly.
(Virendra D. Kedar)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions
Court,Gr.Mumbai
Date:.29.09.2022 (C.R. No.1)
Dictated on : 29.09.2022
Transcribed on : 03.10.2022
Signed on :
-- 5 of 6 --
6 Ch/sum. no. 1576-19, in Suit no. 1949-13
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE 04.10.2022 NAME OF STENOGRAPHER(GI)
Mr. V. S. Shinde
TIME:
Name of the Judge (With Court room no.) HHJ Shri Virendra D. Kedar
(Court Room No.1)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGEMENT/ORDER 29.09.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 04.10.2022
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 04.10.2022
-- 6 of 6 --