Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CH/S.2208/19 SUIT 1438/18 1
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.2208 OF 2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1438 OF 2018
(UNDER ORDER XXXVII THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908)
( CNR NO.: MHCC010128642019)
Pawan Dhaneria ...Plaintiff
Versus
Rao Edusolutions Pvt. Ltd.and others ...Defendants
Appearances:
Advocate Mr.M.T.Shewale for the Plaintiff.
Advocate Ms.Kavita Sharma for the Defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
DEEPAK L. BHAGWAT
(C.R.NO.28)
DATE : 28th JANUARY 2020
O R D E R
1. By this Chamber Summons the defendants requested to condone
the delay of 21 days in filing the Vakalatnama. The plaintiff resisted the
Chamber summons.
2. The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the defendants argued that though
the summons was served on the defendants on 15.01.2019 the
defendants were required to obtain consent of the company, thereafter,
-- 1 of 4 --
CH/S.2208/19 SUIT 1438/18 2
to consult advocate. When they approached advocate they were
informed that vakalatnama needs to be filed within 10 days. In this
process, there has been delay of 21 days to file the vakalatnama.
Therefore, he requested to allow the Chamber summons and condone
the delay.
3. On the other hand, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff argued
that there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay. The defendants
have been negligent. Earlier also Chamber summons was taken out by
the defendants which was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh Chamber
summons. Thus, there has been in total delay of 99 days which is not
explained. Therefore, he requested to reject the chamber summons.
4. Admittedly, the summons was served on the defendants on
15.01.2019. The defendants ought to have appeared and filed
vakalatnama on or before 25.01.2019. However, the defendants did not
appear within the said stipulated period. It reveals that the defendants
appeared on 16.02.2019. Although vakalatnama was not filed on same
date, the advocate appearing on behalf of the defendants had
undertaken to file the vakalatnama. Thus, the defendants had factually
appeared on 16.02.2019. The reasons mentioned for delay are that the
defendants required to obtain consent of the company and consult
advocate. The same are satisfactory as it is normal that sometimes
consent of the company is required to obtain, and consulting the
advocate is time consuming process. Thus, the reasons given are
satisfactory. It is true that the defendants had taken out Chamber
summons vide No.1052 of 2019 for similar relief. However, this court
granted permission to the defendants to withdraw the same with liberty
to file fresh Chamber Summons as there were formal defects in the
-- 2 of 4 --
CH/S.2208/19 SUIT 1438/18 3
same Chamber summons. Thus, there has been further reason as to why
delay has been caused to file the present Chamber summons. In any
case appearance of the defendants was put on record on 16.02.2019,
although the Chamber summons was not filed immediately. Considering
all these circumstances, and in the interest of justice it is just and proper
to allow the Chamber summons by imposing costs. In the conclusion
order as follows is passed:
ORDER
1. The Chamber Summons No.2208 of 2019 is allowed as under.
2. Delay caused to the defendants to file the vakalatnama is
condoned and the appearance and vakalatnama on behalf of the
defendants be taken on record subject to cost of Rs.3000/ to be paid to
the plaintiff.
3. Chamber summons 2208 of 2019 is disposed.
(Deepak L. Bhagwat)
AdHoc Judge,
Date: 28/01/2020 City Civil Court,Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 28/01/2020
Transcribed on : 29/01/2020
Signed on : 31/01/2020
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
31/01/2020 at 1.00p.m. Mrs.J.V.Pawar
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
-- 3 of 4 --
CH/S.2208/19 SUIT 1438/18 4
Name of the Judge (With Court Room No.) HHJ Shri.D.L.Bhagwat
(C.R.NO.28)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order 28/01/2020
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 31/01/2020
Judgment/Order uploaded on 31/01/2020
-- 4 of 4 --