Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3809 OF 2019
IN
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.65 OF 2019
Ratanbai Jethalal Savla … Plaintiff
V/s.
Sunshine Tracon Pvt. Ltd. … Defendant
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Preeti Gada for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Dipesh Jain for defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI MILIND V. KURTADIKAR
(C.R. No.20)
DATED : 14th OCTOBER, 2019
ORDER
Defendant has taken out this notice of motion for setting
aside exparte order dated 16.09.2019 and to allow to file written
statement on record.
2. It is argued on behalf of defendant that the suit summons
was served at their office address on 08.08.2019. However, they were
not aware about said suit summons. Only on 01.10.2019, he came to
know about suit summons from the employee. Immediately, he has
taken the search wherein it reveal that on 16.09.2019 Court has passed
exparte order. As defendant was not aware about receipt of summons
therefore, he has not taken steps thereby causing delay of 32 days. The
MHCC010076212019
-- 1 of 4 --
NM 3809/2019 .. 2 .. Suit No.65/2019
delay is not intentional one. Defendant is ever ready to proceed with
the suit. Defendant has good case on merit. Therefore, he may be
allowed to file written statement.
3. The Learned Counsel for plaintiff has resisted the
application on the ground that, suit summons was served on the correct
address of defendant. Defendant is not disputing the address.
Therefore, it can be said that on 08.08.2019 i.e. when summons were
served at his office, he is aware about the suit. Therefore, it was
necessary for him to file written statement within time. Even he has not
put his appearance as per the due date in summons. It goes to show
that defendant is playing delay tactics. The plaintiff is old aged about
90 years. Therefore, it is necessary to expedite the matter. Accordingly
Learned Counsel for plaintiff prayed for dismissal of the application.
4. As per contention of defendant, summons was received on
08.08.2019 while he got its knowledge on 01.10.2019. It goes to show
that he has got knowledge of the suit after passing the impugned order.
It is a matter of record that, on the very next date defendant has taken
out this notice of motion. It shows that there is no intention of
defendant to delay the matter. Moreover, matter should be decided
finally by giving full opportunity to both the sides. It will also give the
finality to the dispute. Therefore, I am of the opinion that opportunity
needs to be given to the defendant to place his case. In case of delay
certain cost can be imposed. Accordingly the order.
ORDER
1. NM No.3809/19 in SU No.65/19 is hereby allowed.
-- 2 of 4 --
NM 3809/2019 .. 3 .. Suit No.65/2019
2. The exparte order dated 16.09.2019 passed against defendant is
hereby set aside on payment of cost of Rs.2,000/ to be paid to
the plaintiff on or before next date or to deposit it in the Court.
3. On compliance of cost order written statement of defendant be
taken on record.
( MILIND V. KURTADIKAR )
Judge, (C.R. No.20)
Dt.: 14/10/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 14.10.2019
Transcribed on : 15.10.2019
Signed on : 16.10.2019
sbk/
-- 3 of 4 --
NM 3809/2019 .. 4 .. Suit No.65/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
17.10.2019 11.30 a.m. Sanjay Baliram Kaskar
(Stenographer Higher Grade)
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri M.V. Kurtadikar
(CR No.20)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgement/Order.
14.10.2019.
Judgement/order signed by P.O on 16.10.2019.
Judgement/order uploaded on 17.10.2019.
-- 4 of 4 --