Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: :: 1 ::
CNR No. MHSCA-30003122024
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT MUMBAI.
(BANDRA BRANCH)
Order Below Exhibit -11
In
R. A. E. Suit No. 117 of 2024
1. Shri. Nemchand Arjan Shah & Ors. ….... Plaintiffs.
V/s.
1. Smt. Madhuri Harakhchand Savla & Anr. …... Defendants.
Appearance:-
Ld. Advocate for the plaintiffs : Mr. A. M. Yadav.
Ld. Advocate for the defendant No.2 : Mr. K. S. Yadav.
Coram : R. R. Kale,
Judge, C.R. No. 35 (B.B.)
Date : 21.12.2024.
Oral Order :
Present application is taken out by the defendant No. 2 to
condone the delay caused in filing her written statement and to permit
her to file it on record.
2. The defendant No. 2 has submitted in her application in
brief that, there is delay in filing the written statement and on account
of reasons stated in the application, the delay may kindly be condoned
and her written statement be taken on record.
3. On the contrary, the plaintiffs have filed their reply vide
Exh. 12 and strongly opposed the present application. The plaintiffs
have lastly urged for dismissal of the application.
4. From the contents of the application and say filed thereon,
following points arise for my determination. I have given my findings
/home/steno35/R. R. Kale- Judge- c.R.- 35-2024/Dec-24/Orders/21-12/117-2024- RAE- Exh-11- delay condon w.s.).odt
-- 1 of 3 --
:: 2 ::
thereon for the reasons stated as under : -
Sr.
No.
Points Findings
1. Whether the application is liable to be
allowed ?
...Yes.
2. What order ? ...Application
stands allowed on
cost.
: R E A S O N S :
As to Point Nos. 1 & 2 :-
5. Heard respective Ld. advocates on behalf of both the
parties at length. They have advanced their arguments as per their
respective contentions.
6. After perusal of the application and say filed by the
plaintiffs thereon it seems that, the delay has been caused in filing
written statement on record within statutory period by the defendant
No.2. Considering the reasons assigned for not filing written statement
within statutory period as per the Code of Civil Procedure, to decide the
real controversy between the parties and considering the right of
defendant No.2 to take defence to the claim of the plaintiffs, it would be
just and proper to allow this application and permit her to file written
statement on record. At the same time, some cost needs to be imposed
upon the defendant No.2. Therefore, in view of above all discussion, I
answer Point No. 1 in affirmative and in answer to Point No. 2, I
proceed to pass the following order :-
:: O R D E R ::
1) Application vide Exh. 11 stands allowed
subject to cost of Rs. 500/- to be given to
/home/steno35/R. R. Kale- Judge- c.R.- 35-2024/Dec-24/Orders/21-12/117-2024- RAE- Exh-11- delay condon w.s.).odt
-- 2 of 3 --
:: 3 ::
the plaintiffs on or before next date.
2) The delay caused in filing written
statement on record is hereby condoned
and the defendant No. 2 is permitted to
file her written statement on record.
3) On failure of the defendant No.2 to pay
the cost, the said order shall stand
cancelled.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)
(R. R. Kale)
Date : 21.12.2024. Judge, C.R. No. 35 (B.B.)
Order dictated on computer : 21.12.2024
Order checked & signed on :21.12.2024.
/home/steno35/R. R. Kale- Judge- c.R.- 35-2024/Dec-24/Orders/21-12/117-2024- RAE- Exh-11- delay condon w.s.).odt
-- 3 of 3 --