Interim Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 Draft Notice of Motion
in Suit No.3368/2019
MHCC010128362019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
DRAFT NOTICE OF MOTION
IN
SUIT NO. 3368 OF 2019.
Mrs. Geeta Krishnakant Pantwalawalkar and
the others. …. Plaintiffs.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and the others. …. Defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. A.B. HODAWADEKAR
(Court Room No.08).
DATE : 09.04.2026.
APPEARANCES :
Ld. Adv. Ms. Jigna Modi i/b Adv. Adv. Uma Wagle for the plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Amit Kapse for defendant No. 3.
1. Defendant No.3 has taken out this Notice of Motion (for the
brevity 'the NM'), seeking condonation of delay and for permission to
file the written statement. The application is supported by the affidavit.
2. It is contention of defendant No.3 in affidavit that on
25.06.2025 amended copy of plaint and letter of request served. As per
the amendment, defendant No.3 was added as party defendant. Period
of one month was there i.e. 25.07.2025, to file the written statement.
Thereafter, five months have passed to receive instructions to file
written statement. In the month of November-2025, written statement
was ready and same was affirmed. However, because of the situation
beyond the control of defendant No.3, the same could not filed. Now,
defendant No.3 is ready and willing to file the written statement. On
these grounds, defendant No.3 prayed for condonation of delay of five
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Draft Notice of Motion
in Suit No.3368/2019
months for filing written statement of defendant No.3. According to this
defendant, if, application is allowed, no prejudice will cause to the
plaintiff, but if, this application is refused, then grave harm will cause to
the defendant, which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
3. The plaintiff gave handwritten reply on overleaf of this
application and opposed this NM on the ground that ample chances
were given to the defendant to file written statement. The defendant is
formal party. The plaintiff is senior citizen, whose husband is missing
and has already suffered a lot. On these grounds, the plaintiff prayed
for rejection of application.
4. Heard argument of Ld. Adv. Mr. Amit Kapse for defendant
No.3. He submitted in consonance with the contents in application. Per
contra, heard Ld. Adv. Ms.Jigna Modi i/b Adv. Adv. Uma Wagle on
behalf of plaintiff. Her argument is nothing but replica of reply given by
her.
5. I thoughtfully considered rival contentions. Upon perusal of
record, it appears that as defendant No.3 failed to file the written
statement within stipulated time, on 02.02.2026, ‘No written statement’
order was passed. Though defendant No.3 has not specifically prayed
for setting aside ‘No written statement order’, defendant No.3 is praying
for taking on record the written statement by condonation of delay,
therefore, it is construed as prayer for setting aside, ‘no written
statement order’ also.
6. The legislature has conferred power upon the courts to
condone delay in order to do substantial justice by ensuring disposal of
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Draft Notice of Motion
in Suit No.3368/2019
matters on merits. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ is elastic enough to
permit meaningful application of the law. In the matter at hand, though
defendant No.3 has not explained each day’s delay, has referred to
several factors contributing to the same. Moreover, defendant No.3 is a
Government. There is huge workload and lengthy procedure
Government has to follow. The word ‘shall’ in proviso of Rule 1 of Order
VIII is held as a ‘directory’ and not on ‘mandatory’. Unless and until, the
defendant is permitted to file written statement, the matter cannot be
adjudicated on merits. In the interest of justice, it is always better to
hear the matter on merits. The application for condonation of delay to
file written statement is to be considered liberally, without going into
the technicalities. Considering these facts and circumstances, the delay
deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the application deserves to be
allowed. Hence, I pass the following Order :
-: O R D E R :-
(i). Draft Notice of Motion in Suit No.3368/2019 is allowed.
(ii). Delay to file written statement by defendant No.3 is
condoned and ‘No written statement order’ against
defendant No.3 dated 02.02.2026 is set aside.
(iii). Defendant No.3 is directed to get registered this Draft
Notice of Motion, till the next date, for the statistical
purpose.
(iv). Draft Notice of Motion in Suit No.3368/2019 accordingly,
disposed off.
(A.B. Hodawadekar)
Judge,
City Civil & Addl. Sessions Judge,
Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 09.04.2026.
Transcribed on : 09.04.2026.
Signed on : 09.04.2026.
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Draft Notice of Motion
in Suit No.3368/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
09.04.2026 at 4.53 p.m.
Name of the Stenographer
Mrs. S.R. Mejari
Name of the Judge (with Court Room No.) HHJ Shri A.B.Hodawadekar
(Court Room No.11).
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
09.04.2026
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 09.04.2026
Judgment/Order uploaded on 09.04.2026
-- 4 of 4 --