Skip to main content
NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr. Dattaram Ganapat KhatateVsMr. Ashok Ganpat Khatate and Ors.

CNR MHCC0101254020199-COURT 09 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
CASE DISPOSED
Contested--ALLOWED
Decision Date: 04th March 2020

TrustJury record updated 24 Sept 2026

Case Overview

Registration Number
104576/2019
Registration Date
03 Dec 2019

Advocates

2

For Petitioner

For Respondent

Parties

2

Acts & Sections

1
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act · Sec 9

Case History / Proceedings

Case History
Date: 05-12-2019
Reason For Adjournment: court time is over
Next Purpose: NOTICE OF MOTION
Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2020

Date: 20-01-2020
Business: Plaintiff present.
Advocate Mr. M. M. Shetty for Defendant no.1 and 2 present
Advocate Mr. Ganesh Dhende for Defendant no.3 to 7 present
Advocate Mr. Sanjay Joshi for Defendant no.8 and 9 present and filed reply to Notice of Motion no.4576/19, t.o.r.
Case is adjourned to 04/03/2020 for NM for hearing.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2020

Date: 04-03-2020
Business: Advocate Mr. Kava for Plaintiff present
Advocate Mr. M. M. Shetty for Defendant no.1 and 2 present
Advocate Mr. Ganesh Dhote for Defendant no.3 to 7 present
Advocate Mr. Sanjay Joshi for Defendant no.8 and 9 present
                         ORDER ON NM NO.4576/19
This Notice of Motion is taken out by Defendant no.3 to 7 for condonation of delay caused in filing their Written Statement.
Defendant no.6 has filed her affidavit in support of Notice of Motion contending that Defendant nos.3 to 7 are old age persons suffering from ailments and therefore those Defendants could not give the instructions to their advocate for filing Written Statement on their behalf.  It is contended  that Plaintiff will not suffer from prejudice if the Notice of Motion will be allowed.
Plaintiff Dattaram Khatate has filed his affidavit in reply and requested to allow Notice of Motion taken out by Defendant nos.3 to 7.  Defendant nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9 also have filed their affidavits of reply to resist the Notice of Motion contending that Plaintiff and Defendant nos.3 to 7 are in collusion with each other. It is denied that Defendant nos.3 to 7 were unable to give instructions to their lawyers as those Defendants were suffering from various ailments. According to Defendant nos.1,2,8 and 9 Notice of Motion taken out by Defendant nos.3 to 7 is false and it is necessary to be dismissed.  According to Defendant nos.8 and 9 contents of affidavit filed in support of Notice of Motion are false in respect of consent affidavit dated 03/01/1990.
Heard advocate for Defendant nos.3 to 7, Plaintiff\\\''s advocate and advocate for Defendant nos.1,2,8 and 9.  Admittedly, 9 months delay is caused in filing Written Statement by Defendant nos.3 to 7.   Actually, in plaint age of none of the Defendants is mentioned, however Defendant nos.1, 2 and 9 are present before the Court and  they have submitted that age of Defendant nos.3 to 7 may be more than 60 years. The court can take judicial note of the fact that senior citizens can suffer from various ailments due to age factor and therefore if they are contending that they are suffered from ailments said statement can not be discarded due to their old age.  Any how, Defendant nos.3 to 7 are intending to contest the suit by filing their Written Statement and according to Defendant nos.1,2,8 and 9 Defendant nos. 3 to 7 are in collusion with Plaintiff. Said aspect of collusion will have to be proved by the party who has alleged such collusion by adducing cogent evidence and at the time of considering the Notice of Motion for condoning the delay, in my opinion the aspect of collusion will not come across the way.  Further, it is always better for Plaintiff to get the contested decree, if at all, he is entitled to it.  In such circumstances, I find that Notice of Motion taken out by Defendant nos.3 to 7 can be allowed and delay caused in filing their Written Statement can be condoned subject to cost of Rs.4500/- by all those Defendants together to Plaintiff, hence, I proceed to pass following order -
                                       ORDER
1. Notice of Motion no.4576 of 2019 is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b), subject to cost of Rs.4,500/- to be paid for free legal aid, because Plaintiff has given no objection.
2. It is made clear that after Defendant nos.3 to 7 will deposit cost amount, Written Statement filed by Defendant nos.3 to 7 will be accepted and exhibited.
Case is adjourned to 20/04/2020 for Compliance.
Nature Of Disposal: ALLOWED
Disposal Date: 04-03-2020

Additional Case Details

Additional Case Details
Filing Number: 113385/2019
Filing Date: 03-12-2019
First Hearing Date: 05th December 2019
Decision Date: 04th March 2020
Court Number And Judge: 9-COURT 09 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE

Orders

1
Final Order 1Full order available
04 Mar 2020

Order Details: Notice of Motion Pdf Text: Daily Status IN THE COURT OF :COURT 9 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE Case No. :NOTICE OF MOTION/0104576/2019 Mr. Dattaram Ganapat Khatate Vs Mr. Ashok Ganpat Khatate and Ors. Date : 04-03-2020 Business : Advocate Mr. Kava for Plaintiff present Advocate Mr. M. M. Shetty for Defendant no.1 and 2 present Advocate Mr. Ganesh Dhote for Defendant no.3 to 7 present Advocate Mr. Sanjay Joshi for Defendant no.8 and 9 present ORDER ON NM NO.4576/19…

Read Full Order

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.