Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: .. 1 ..
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI
( BANDRA BRANCH)
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT- 11
IN
R. A. E. SUIT NO. 115 OF 2024
(CNR-MHSCA30003082024)
1. Shri. Nemhand Arjan Shah & Ors. ...Plaintiffs.
Versus
1. Isabella Cardoz & Anrs. ...Defendants.
Appearance:-
Mr. Akhilesh M. Yadav, ….Ld. Advocate for plaintiffs.
Mr. Lokesh K. Singh, ….Ld. Advocate for defendant No.2.
Coram :- L. B. M. M. A. Syed
Judge,
C .R. No. 35 [B.B.]
Date :- 19th July, 2025.
ORDER :
This is application is an application filed by the defendant
No. 2 for condonation of delay in filing written statement.
2. The defendant No. 2 state that, the plaintiffs have filed suit
against the defendants seeking eviction from suit premises. Suit
summons along with plant served upon defendant No. 2 on 02.05.2024.
After service of writ of summons on 02.05.2024, he has contacted his
advocate and his advocate asked some documents for preparing written
statement and due to vacation his advocate has went his native place,
therefore, there is delay of 25 days in filing written statement. Hence,
defendant No. 2 prayed to allow his application.
3. The plaintiffs have filed reply at Exh. 14 and prayed to
reject the application with costs. They submit that, present application
taken out by the defendant No. 2 is illegal, bad in law and not according
-- 1 of 2 --
.. 2 .. EXH- 11 R.A.E. Suit No. 115 of 2024
to law. The defendant No. 2 duly served with writ of summons on
02.05.2024 through bailiff of this Court. The reason mentioned by the
defendant No. 2 in the application is denied by the plaintiffs. They
further submit that, entire application there is no sufficient cause has
been shown. Hence, plaintiffs prayed to reject the application with costs.
4. Heard both the Ld. Advocate of respective parties. Perused
the record. However, in my view, both the parties are entitled to get the
justice after getting sufficient opportunity to contest the matter. Further,
as per the various judgments of Higher Court, the liberal view must be
taken while passing the orders of condonation of delay and both parties
should be heard. The delay is of 25 days, but it is filed within 90 days
from the date of service of summons. Therefore, considering the grounds
mentioned in the application and the period of delay, the application is
liable to be allowed. Hence, in the sequel I pass the following order :-
: O R D E R :
1. The application is allowed subject to payment of costs of
Rs.500/- to be paid to the plaintiffs.
2. Delay in filing written statement of the defendant No. 2 is
hereby condoned.
3. Written statement of defendant No. 2 annexed with this
application be taken on record after payment of costs.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
( L. B. M. M. A. Syed )
Date : 19.07.2025 Judge, C.R. No. 35(B.B.)
Order dictated on : 19.07.2025
Order checked and signed on :19.07.2025
/home/steno35/Desktop/L. M. Syed /July-25/Orders/19-7/115- 2024- RAE- Exh- 11- w.s. -).odt
-- 2 of 2 --