Interim Order 2

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: 1 Exh 16 in R.A.E. Suit No. 160/2022
CNR No. MHSCA30003942022
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT MUMBAI.
(BANDRA BRANCH)
Order Below Exhibit 16
In
R.A.E. Suit No. 160/2022
1) Mr Renold John Cabral & Anr. Plaintiffs.
V/s.
Mr Trilok Singh Mehta Defendant.
Shri T.R. Patel, advocate for the plaintiffs.
Shri Ratnish Dubey, advocate for the Defendant.
Coram : Shri B.T. Zirape, Judge.
C.R. No. 38 (B.B.)
Date : 19.09.2022.
Oral Order :
1) Perused the application and say of plaintiffs. Perused
record and proceeding. Heard both the learned advocates at
length. This is an application filed by the defendant for
condonation of delay caused for filing his written statement on
record. According to this defendant, the suit summons was sent at
the address at Mira Road by R.P.A.D. on 13.04.2022, where his
son resides with his family. The plaintiffs have shown address of
the defendant at Mira Road deliberately and intentionally. The
address of this defendant is at Andheri (East). The son of
defendant received the papers on 13.04.2022. He gave all the
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Exh 16 in R.A.E. Suit No. 160/2022
documents to the defendant on 17.04.2022. The next date of the
suit was 18.04.2022. This defendant engaged the advocate and
instructed him to file his vakalatnama on record. The matter was
adjourned on 05.05.2022. Thereafter, the court was closed. The
advocate for the defendant informed him to file written statement
within a period of 30 days from the date of service of summons.
He also informed that there is vacation. Therefore, the written
statement can be filed on very first day of opening of the court i.e.
06.06.2022. Thereafter, this defendant felt sick and was
hospitalised. Therefore, he could not see his advocate and could
not file his written statement on record on 06.06.2022.
2) This defendant is a senior citizen and suffering from
various age ailments. Meanwhile, he was hospitalised. Therefore,
he could not instruct his advocate to prepare the written
statement. Therefore, the delay of 45 days is caused. The delay is
not deliberate and intentional. According to the defendant, no
prejudice will be caused to the plaintiffs if the application is
allowed. Finally, the defendant requested for grant of the
application.
3) The plaintiffs have resisted the application by filing
reply at Exh. 17. The plaintiffs denied most of the contention of
the application. According to them, the defendant has miserably
failed to show any sufficient reason or satisfactory explanation to
condone the delay of 45 days for filing the written statement. In
absence of sufficient ground and disclosing of sufficient reason,
the delay caused in filing written statement cannot be condoned.
The application is filed by the defendant is hopelessly time
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Exh 16 in R.A.E. Suit No. 160/2022
barred. The defendant failed to comply Order VII Rule 1A, Order
VI Rule 14A and 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The
defendant has not explained the delay of each day caused in
taking out the present application. The defendant has made false,
frivolous and baseless contentions in the application. The plaintiff
denied all other contentions of the application. Finally, the
plaintiffs requested for dismissal of the application with
compensatory costs.
4) After hearing the rival submissions of parties, I have
gone through the record and proceeding of the present matter.
Present suit appears to be filed for eviction on the grounds
particularly set out in the plaint. According to the defendant, his
son received the suit summons by R.P.A.D. at Mira Road address
on 13.04.2022. I am of the view that the written statement of the
defendant will be helpful to decide the real controversy finally on
merit. According to the defendant, 45 days delay is caused for
filing the written statement on record. It is necessary to give fair
chance to the party to agitate his case. Therefore, the written
statement of defendant is necessary.
5) The age of the defendant is mentioned as 67 years on
this application. Considering the old age of the defendant and
grounds mentioned in the application, I am of the view that the
application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. I am of
the view that there is no need to saddle any costs while granting
the present application by considering the age of this defendant.
In the result, application deserves to be allowed. In this view of
the matter, I proceed to pass the following order :
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Exh 16 in R.A.E. Suit No. 160/2022
ORDER
1) The application is allowed as observed above.
2) The delay caused for filing the written
statement to the defendant stands condoned in
the interest of justice.
3) Written statement of the defendant be taken
on record.
(B.T. Zirape)
Judge.
Date : 19.09.2022. C.R. No. 38.(B.B.)
Order dictated on : 19.09.2022.
Order transcribed on : 19.09.2022.
Order checked & signed on : 19.09.2022.
/home/steno38/Desktop/CR38sgzfrom 2019/B.T.Zirape/NOTICES BTZ/SEPT 2022/16022RAEExh16(WS)19.9.22.odt
-- 4 of 4 --