Order 3

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: 1
MHSCA30000942025
IN THE SMALL CAUSES COURT AT MUMBAI
( BANDRA BRANCH )
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT NO. 18
IN
R. A. E. SUIT NO. 27 OF 2025
Mr. Haresh Hansraj Vira ...Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mrs. Pushpa Ramesh Desai & Another ...Defendants
Mr. Gulabsingh S. Yadav, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mr. R. L. Dubey, Advocate for Defendant No.2.
Coram : L.B.M.M.A. Syed, Judge
Court Room No.38
Date : 02nd September, 2026
ORDER
This is an application filed by the defendant No.2 for
condonation of delay for filing written statement.
2. The suit of plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious and
the same is filed with an ulterior motive by showing name of Shyam
Govind Borkar with wrong address mentioned below his name. The
correct address is also shown in the cause title along with defendant
No.1. The said mischief is done with a view to create evidence
/home/steno38/Desktop/Exh 18 in RAE 27-2025.odt
-- 1 of 3 --
2
against him. No writ of summons issued and served on him. The
defendant No.1 has filed written statement and also stated that
defendant No.2 is Shyam Govind Borkar. But the same is Govind
Vishnu Borkar.
3. The plaintiff has not tried to amend the plaint by giving proper
description of name and address. The writ of summons is not served
on his name and address of the premises. His advocate filed
Vakalatnama on 17.11.2025. Thereafter also, no application for
correction of name was filed by the plaintiff. His advocate has
informed him that the written statement will be filed on the next date
and the suit was adjourned to 27.03.2026. Therefore, the applicant
prays to condone the delay of 100 days and allow him to file the
written statement on record.
4. The learned advocate for the plaintiff filed say on
overleaf of the application and submits that the application be
dismissed with costs. The suit summons has been served on the
defendant since long. The defendant was knowing the period of
limitation to file written statement. No supportive document have
been filed along with the application. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed
to reject the application with costs.
5. Heard learned advocates for both the respective parties.
Perused the application and say.
6. It appears that some delay occurred in filing the written
statement. The applicant has properly explained delay which appears
to be bonafide and justifiable. The rights of parties are on stake and
/home/steno38/Desktop/Exh 18 in RAE 27-2025.odt
-- 2 of 3 --
3
therefore, to decide the application on merit, it will be proper to
allow an opportunity to defendant to put up his defense by filing
written statement on record. Hence, I do not find any impediment to
allow the applicant/defendant No.2 to file his written statement.
Hence, the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to
pass the following order :
ORDER
1. The application is allowed.
2. The delay of 100 days in filing written
statement is condoned.
3. The written statement of defendant No.2 is
taken on record.
( L.B.M.M.A. Syed )
Date : 02.09.2026 Judge, C. R. No.38 (B.B.)
/home/steno38/Desktop/Exh 18 in RAE 27-2025.odt
-- 3 of 3 --