Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 4.11.2019
SU 2294/19
NM 3304/19
CORAM: H. H. J. SHRI.M.T.ASIM (CR. NO. 02)
Adv. Harish Pawar for plaintiff present.
Adv. Surya for defendant present.
Defendant tendered three registered NM 3978/19, 3979/19 and 3980/19 t.o.r.
Copy given to other side.
Say filed by advocate for plaintiff on three notice of motions.
KB
Order passed below notice of motion No.3980 of 2019
Perused notice of motion, affidavit in support of it and say of plaintiff. Heard respective counsel for parties.
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have taken out present notice of motion to condone delay caused in filing written statement and to take the same on record.
It is the contention of defendants that writ of summons was served upon them on 5th September, 2019. Draft written statement was ready on 19th September,
2019 however certain information was required by them from defendant Nos.3 to 5 in respect to subject matter of the suit so same could not be filed within
stipulated period. Accordingly, they made prayer in above terms.
Plaintiff society opposed the notice of motion on the count that no sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the
notice of motion.
Before adverting to the facts I would like to mention that it is a settled law that Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory and in specific circumstances
written statement can be accepted with reasons. It is also held that in an adversarial system, no party should be denied an opportunity in participation of the justice
dispensation system (Salem Bar Association V/s Union of India 2003 AIR SCC 189 and Zolba V/s Keshav 2008 AIR SCC 2099). In view of this legal
position, now, I consider notice of motion.
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have annexed copy of written statement to be filed on record which shows that they affirmed it on 9th October, 2019. Thus, it is clear that
they do not want to delay the prosecution of matter. Further, reason assigned by them is sufficient to condone the delay caused in filing of written statement. More
so, delay caused is not deliberate and inordinate. Therefore, I am inclined to allow notice of motion in the interest of justice. Hence, pass following order:
ORDER
1. Notice of motion No.3980 of 2019 is allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
2. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are directed to file their written statement today itself.
3. Accordingly, notice of motion is disposed off.
…...............
Order passed below notice of motion No.3979 of 2019
Perused notice of motion, affidavit in support of it and say of plaintiff. Heard respective counsel for parties.
Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have taken out present notice of motion to condone delay caused in filing written statement and to take the same on record.
It is the contention of defendants that writ of summons was served upon them on 24.08.2019. Suit premises was purchased in 2005 from defendant No.5 and
they sold the same to defendant Nos.1 and 2 in 2012. They were required to find the documents relating to suit premises since 2005 as well as documents which
were handed over to them by defendant No.5 at the time of purchase of suit premises from him. More so, defendant No.3 was also required to contact defendant
No.1 and 2 so as to find out nature of suit. It is further contended that written statement was finalized on 14.10.2019 and affirmed on 15.10.2019. In above
circumstances, they prayed in above terms.
Plaintiff society opposed the notice of motion on the count that no sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the
notice of motion.
Before adverting to the facts I would like to mention that it is a settled law that Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory and in specific circumstances
written statement can be accepted with reasons. It is also held that in an adversarial system, no party should be denied an opportunity in participation of the justice
dispensation system (Salem Bar Association V/s Union of India 2003 AIR SCC 189 and Zolba V/s Keshav 2008 AIR SCC 2099). In view of this legal
position, now, I consider notice of motion.
Defendant No.3 and 4 have annexed copy of written statement to be filed on record which shows that they affirmed it on 15th October, 2019. Thus, it is clear
that they do not want to delay the prosecution of matter. Further, reason assigned by them is sufficient to condone the delay caused in filing of written statement.
More so, delay caused is not deliberate and inordinate. Therefore, I am inclined to allow notice of motion in the interest of justice. Hence, pass following order:
ORDER
1. Notice of motion No.3979 of 2019 is allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
2. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are directed to file their written statement today itself.
3. Accordingly, notice of motion is disposed off.
….......
Order passed below notice of motion No.3978 of 2019
Perused notice of motion, affidavit in support of it and say of plaintiff. Heard respective counsel for parties.
Defendant No.5 has taken out present notice of motion to condone delay caused in filing written statement and to take the same on record.
It is the contention of defendant that writ of summons was served upon him on 23.08.2019. Suit premises was sold to defendant No.3 and 4 in 2005 by him. It
was belonging to his father and was in possession, use and occupation of his father since 1959. He was required to collect the documents almost 60 year old for
filing his written statement. He was also required to find out the papers available with him as he has already suit premises to defendant Nos.3 and 4. It is further
contended that written statement was finalized on 12.10.2019 and affirmed on 14.10.2019. In above circumstances, he prayed in above terms.
Plaintiff society opposed the notice of motion on the count that no sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the
notice of motion.
Before adverting to the facts I would like to mention that it is a settled law that Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory and in specific circumstances
written statement can be accepted with reasons. It is also held that in an adversarial system, no party should be denied an opportunity in participation of the justice
dispensation system (Salem Bar Association V/s Union of India 2003 AIR SCC 189 and Zolba V/s Keshav 2008 AIR SCC 2099). In view of this legal
position, now, I consider notice of motion.
Defendant No.5 has annexed copy of written statement to be filed on record which shows that he affirmed it on 14th October, 2019. Thus, it is clear that he
does not want to delay the prosecution of matter. Further, reason assigned by him is sufficient to condone the delay caused in filing of written statement. More so,
delay caused is not deliberate and inordinate. Therefore, I am inclined to allow notice of motion in the interest of justice. Hence, pass following order:
ORDER
1. Notice of motion No.3978 of 2019 is allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
2. Defendant No.5 is directed to file his written statement today itself.
3. Accordingly, notice of motion is disposed off.
….............
Exh.5 Written statement filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2
Exh.6 Written statement filed by defendant Nos.3 and 4
Exh.7 Written statement filed by defendant No.5
Copy be served upon plaintiffs.
Adjourned for NM hearing to 28.11.2019.
Judge
-- 1 of 1 --