Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 MA 125/19
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT, AT MUMBAI
MISC. APPLICATION NO.125/2019
(CNR No.MHCC010109242019)
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 682/2019
IN
S.C Suit (STAMP) No.1434/2018
Mr. Meghraj Jagatram Goyal ...Plaintiff
V/s.
1. Mr. Sat Prakash Goyal,
2. Nutan Madhuban Apartments. ...Defendants
Appearance:
Ms. Aruna Rathi, Constituted Attorney for applicant/ defendant no.1.
Adv. Mr. Vyas for respondent.
CORAM : HHJ Shri V.V. Vidwans
C. R. No.03
DATE : 26.11.2019.
ORAL ORDER
1. This is an application for condonation of delay in getting
lodging number to Stamp No.10305/2019 dated 23.9.2019 filed by
defendant no.1 through his Power of Attorney Ms. Aruna Rathi. It is
submitted that, the defendant no.1 had filed an application for review of
order dated 16.7.2019 on 31.7.2019, however there were office objections.
Defendant no.1 learnt that, the lodging no. i.e. St. No.10305/19 was
marked as Review Petition on 23.9.2019. However, due to inadvertence,
the review petition was not filed in Board Section as per procedure. Hence,
it appears that, there has been some technical delay of about 39 days in
filing the review petition, which deserves to be condoned in the interest of
-- 1 of 4 --
2 MA 125/19
justice.
2. In the office objection dated 26.9.2019, it is noted that, the
impugned order, of which review is sought, is dated 16.7.2019. Amongst
other objections, there was objection that there was delay in filing the
application.
3. I have heard Ms. Aruna Rathi on behalf of defendant no.1 and
Adv. Mr. Vyas on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has opposed the
application on various grounds. She submitted that, in fact, the delay is
more than 39 days and it is not properly explained. Hence, the M.A is
liable to be rejected.
4. Admittedly, the oral order passed by this court on 16.7.2019
and present application filed by defendant no.1 for review of the said order
was lodged on 23.9.2019. It ought to have been filed on or before
14.8.2019. It can be seen from the record of review petition that, it is
prepared on 30.7.2019 and submitted in the court on 31.7.2019 without
following procedure and office had noted objection on 26.9.2019. It
appears that, the defendant no.1 is represented by Power of Attorney
holder Ms. Aruna Rathi, who is not a lawyer and therefore, was not aware
about the procedure that before filing the review petition, it is required to
be noted in Board Section. So after it was noticed that the review petition
is not duly registered, the Power of Attorney holder of defendant no.1 had
completed the procedure and submitted the same on 14.8.2019. Thus,
there is technical delay of 39 days because the review petition ought to
-- 2 of 4 --
3 MA 125/19
have been filed within one month from the date of passing of order. The
delay do not appear to be intentional and deliberate and in the interest of
justice, it is liable to be condoned. Hence, I proceed to pass following
order:
ORDER
1. Misc. Appln. No. 125/2019 is hereby allowed.
2. The delay in filing the review petition, if any, is hereby
condoned in the interest of justice.
3. Now, the office is directed to register the review petition
and do the needful.
M.A. is disposed of accordingly.
(V.V. VIdwans)
Judge, City Civil Court,
Date: 26.11.2019 Gr. Bombay (C.R. 03)
Dictated on : 26.11.2019
Typed on : 27.11.2019
Signed on : 28.11.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
4 MA 125/19
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ ORDER.
UPLOADED ON : 29.11.19
TIME: 12.07 pm (NITIN V. UBALE)
SELECTION GR. STENOGRAPHER.
Name of the judge (with Court Room No.) Shri V.V. Vidwans, Judge, (C.R. 03)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/ Order 26.11.19
Judgment/ order signed by P.O on 28.11.19
Judgment/ order uploaded on 29.11.19
-- 4 of 4 --