Date: 04-11-2019
Business: Plaintiff present.
Defendant present.
Defendant tendered registered NM 4017/19.
KB
LO
Adv. Prasad Apte for plaintiff present.
He sought time to file reply to the NM 4017/19
O- Time is granted.
He pressed for hearing of NM 2106/19. In view of subsequent development it is just hear NM no 2106/19 after decision of NM No 4017/19
Therefore, adjourned for reply NM 4017/19 and hearing of NM 2106/19 to 16.11.2019.
Next Purpose: REPLY
Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2019
Date: 16-11-2019
Business: Adv. Singh for plaintiff present.
Adv. Pawar for defendant no.1 present.
Defendant no.1 present.
Reply filed by the plaintiff to the NM 4017/19.
Heard counsel for parties.
KB
L.O.
Order on NM No.4017/19 alongwith application for delay condonation.
Perused notice of motion, affidavit in support of it, application for delay condonation and reply of the plaintiff.
Heard respective counsel for parties.
Notice of motion is taken out by defendant no.1 alongwith application for condonation of delay in relation to delay caused in filing of written statement and to take the same on record. It is the contention of defendant no.1 that writ of summons was served upon him on 08.06.2019 and as he was unaware about the Court proceeding, so he could not appoint Advocate within time, because of which delay has been caused in filing of written statement. It is further contended that he wants to contest matter on merits and no prejudice will be caused to the Plaintiff if he is permitted to file written statement on record.
Accordingly, he made prayer in above terms.
Plaintiff opposed Notice of motion on the ground that no sufficient and justified reason is assigned by defendant no.1 to condone the delay caused in filing of written statement and prayed to dismiss 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.
No doubt there are latches on the part of defendant no.1 but in the interest of justice and equity, it is unjust to deny defendant no.1 an opportunity to contest the matter on merits.
The delay caused is not inordinate and it cannot be said that it is deliberate. Moreso, defendant no.1 has shown readiness to place written statement which has been drafted but yet not affirmed. Considering above facts and reason assigned by defendant no.1, I am inclined to allow Notice of motion and delay condonation application subject to payment of certain costs. Hence, pass following order.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.4017/19 and application for delay condonation is allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five Hundred only) within period of one week from date of order.
2. On payment of costs, written statement of defendant no.1 be taken on record.
Accordingly, NM no.4017/19 is disposed off.
Costs paid by defendant no.1 to Adv for Plaintiff who received it on behalf of plaintiff.
Adj for hearing on NM No.2106/19 to 03.12.2019.
Nature Of Disposal: ALLOWED
Disposal Date: 16-11-2019
