Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: Back
Daily Status
IN THE COURT OF :COURT 28 ADD SESSIONS JUDGE
Case No. :NOTICE OF MOTION/0103278/2019
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs P.S. Enterprises
Date : 24-03-2021
Business : Adv. Bhole for plaintiff None for defendant ORDER- 1.
Heard the Ld advocate on behalf of the plaintiff. None
appeared on behalf of the defendant to advance arguments.
By present Notice of Motion the defendant requested to
condone the delay of 79 days to file the written statement.
The Ld advocate on behalf of the plaintiff rightly objected
contending that this is summary suit and therefore written
statement cannot be filed at this stage. However, he also
argued that the defendant ought to have filed notice of
motion for condoning delay caused to appear in the matter
as the defendant did not appear within stipulated period of
10 days from the date of service of summons for
appearance. As already noted this is summary suit and
written statement cannot be permitted unless leave to
defend is granted to the defendant. Yet the summons for
judgment has not been filed and heard. Yet the question
whether leave to defend can be granted to the defendant is
not decided. The matter has not reached that stage.
Therefore there is no question to condone the delay for
filing written statement and accept the written statement on
record. Resultantly, the notice of motion is liable to be
rejected. However, at the same time it has to be made clear
as to whether the defendant appeared within the stipulated
period of 10 days. Admittedly summons was served on the
defendant on 29-04-2019. The defendant was under
obligation to appear within 10 days. However, at the same
time it must be noted that the summer vacation started to
the court on 06.05.2019. As such the 10th day came in the
summer vacation. It cannot be expected from the defendant
to appear in the summer vacation. On the first opening day
after summer vacation i.e. on 3rd June 2019 the defendant
appeared before the court by filing vakalatnama.
Resultantly, the appearance of the defendant must be
deemed to be within stipulated period. Therefore, the
contention that the defendant did not appear within
stipulated period cannot be accepted in the peculiar
circumstances. The vakalatnama of defendant as filed on
03.06.2019 is accepted on record. Hence, the notice of
motion is rejected. However, it is clarified that the
appearance and vakalatnama of the defendant is within
stipulated time and it is accepted on record.
Nature of Disposal : OTHER
Disposal Date : 24-03-2021
-- 1 of 2 --
COURT 28 ADD SESSIONS JUDGE
-- 2 of 2 --