Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 4719-19 in Suit no.1008-16
1 Date :09.01.2020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4719 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 1008 OF 2016
(CNR NO.MHCC010129122019 )
Shri. Ajit S. Kangutkar & Ors. .. Plaintiffs
Versus
Bhandup Estate & Ors. .. Defendants
Appearances :
Adv.Priyank Shukla for plaintiff.
Adv.Mr.Anirban Sen i/b Hariani and Co. for defendant no.1.
Adv.Vivek Kakade for defendant no.2.
Adv.Rohan Pawar for defendant no.3.
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. A.H.Laddhad
Additional Judge
CR No. : 07
Date : 09.01.2020
ORDER
1. The defendant no. 2 has filed instant Notice of Motion for
condonation of 309 days delay in filing Written Statement.
2. It is contended by the defendant no. 2 that summons were
served on 03.12.2018 and accordingly, they have appeared
through their advocate on 07.12.2018. It is contended that
initially they were not aware about the veracity of the averments
made in the plaint. The defendant no. 1 is the Association of
-- 1 of 4 --
NM 4719-19 in Suit no.1008-16
2 Date :09.01.2020
person with several coowners and since the concerned
representative who have knowledge about the facts of the suit was
not available. Therefore, they could not get the proper
instructions. Therefore, Written Statement could not be filed on
24.01.2019 or even on 03.04.2019.
3. It is contended by the defendant no. 2 that their Written
Statement was duly affirmed on 04.07.2019. It is further
contended that their advocate on 04.07.2019 due to heavy rain in
Mumbai, could not reach in time. Therefore, matter was
adjourned to 07.08.2019. However, on 07.08.2019, Court was
vacant, therefore, Written Statement could not be filed.
Accordingly, the matter was posted on 24.09.2019, but
inadvertently, the advocate of defendant no. 2 recorded wrong
date as 25.09.2019 instead of 24.09.2019. On 25.09.2019 when
the advocate for defendant no. 2 appeared, she came to know
about the aforesaid fact. Thus, in the circumstances, there is a
delay of 309 days which was unintentionally and beyond control
of defendant no. 2. The defendant no. 2 contended that they may
be permitted to filed their Written Statement, otherwise great
prejudice would caused to them. Hence, defendant no. 2 prayed
for allowing the present Notice of Motion.
4. Per contra plaintiff opposed Notice of Motion by filing say on
the ground that there is no reasonable and sufficient cause has
been assigned by the defendant to condone the delay.
-- 2 of 4 --
NM 4719-19 in Suit no.1008-16
3 Date :09.01.2020
5. Heard both the sides. Perused Notice of Motion and reply.
During course of argument, the advocate of plaintiff fairly
conceded that delay can be condoned by imposing heavy cost.
Therefore, accepting the aforesaid statement, in my view, the
delay of 309 days in filing Written Statement can be condoned
otherwise suit will remain undefended by the defendant no. 2.
Thus, I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.4719/19 is made absolute in terms of
prayer clause a and b subject to payment of cost Rs.10,000/
to the plaintiff.
2. Upon payment of above cost written statement taken on
record.
3. Notice of motion No.4719/19 is disposed off accordingly.
(A.H.Laddhad)
Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court,
Dated : 09.01.2020 Greater Bombay.
Dictated on : 09.01.2020
Typed on : 09.01.2020
Draft Submitted on : 09.01.2020
Checked on : 15.01.2020
Signed on : 15.01.2020
-- 3 of 4 --
NM 4719-19 in Suit no.1008-16
4 Date :09.01.2020
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
15/01/2020 at 5.00 p.m. (Ms. V.V.Sawant)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
Shri A.H.LADDHAD
(C.R. No.7)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
09/01/2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
15/01/2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 15/01/2020
-- 4 of 4 --