Order 8

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI
(BANDRA BRANCH)
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT - 33
IN
R.A.D. SUIT NO. 163 OF 2025
[MHSCA3-000419-2025]
Mr. Cedric Nazareth D’Costa, ...Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Mrs. Lydia Agnes Dias & Ors. ...Defendants.
Appearance :-
Lulia D.J. Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff.
Anthony D’silva Ld. Advocate for the defendant.
Coram : L.B.M.M.A. Syed,
Judge, C.R.No.35 (B.B.),
Date : 11.03.2026
O R D E R :
The present application is filed by the defendant No.1 for
condition in delay in filing written statement.
2. It is the contention of the defendant that, defendant No.1
was served with the writ of summons on 29.09.2025 and was
required to file written statement within a period of 30 days from
the date of service of the suit summons i.e. or before 20.10.2025. It is
further submitted that, the defendant No.1 is aged 19 years and after
service due to age and other health issues needed time for
documentation as well as to apponit an advocate in the present
matter. It is further submitted that, defendant no.1 has good case in
hand. The suit filed by the plaintiff is false. It is further submitted
that, if the written statement is not taken on record, the defendant
will suffer irreparable loss. Hence, defendant No.1 prayed to allow
the application.
/home/steno35/Desktop/1. L. M. Syed Court Room NO.35/1.March-2026/Orders/11-03/Group order/Exh 33 RAD 163 of 2025 delay
condonation in filing written statement.odt
-- 1 of 2 --
2
3. The plaintiff has filed the reply overleaf of the application
and strongly objected the same. It is further submitted by the plaintiff
that, the application is not maintainable and no sufficient ground has
mentioned. Hence, plaintiff prayed to reject the application.
4. Heard both the sides. Perused the record and
proceeding. Considering the reasons for delay mentioned in the
application, delay is required to be condoned and written statement
of defendant No.1 as to be taken on record. If this application is
rejected then in such contingency the defendant No.1 would suffer
loss as he could not take his defence. Moreover, to put the suit at
stake and to decide the suit on the merits, an opportunity has to be
granted to the defendant No.1 to lead her defence. The reason for the
delay, appears to be bonafide. Therefore, the delay caused in filing
written statement being not intentional, and deserves to be
condoned. Hence, I pass the following order :
:: ORDER ::
1. The application is allowed.
2. Delay of 79 days in filing written statement of the defendant
No.1 is hereby condoned.
3. The defendant No.1 is allowed to adopt the written statement
of the defendant No.2.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(L.B.M.M.A. Syed)
Date : 11.03.2026 Judge, C.R.No.35(B.B.)
Order dictated on : 11.03.2026.
Order checked and signed on : 11.03.2026.
/home/steno35/Desktop/1. L. M. Syed Court Room NO.35/1.March-2026/Orders/11-03/Group order/Exh 33 RAD 163 of 2025 delay
condonation in filing written statement.odt
-- 2 of 2 --