The High Court of Bombay, in a private notice of motion, rejected the defendant's application to file a written statement after a delay of 27 years, citing that other trial stages had concluded.
The Notice of Motion was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.445 OF 2006
IN
SUIT NO.284 OF 1979
Deepak M. Fadia....Plaintiff
V/s.
M/s.Mala Enterprises & Anr.....Defendants
Ms.Manju Sharma i/b Mr.a.V. Doijode for the Plaintiff.
Ms.Sindha Shreedharan for Defendant No.1 in support of
Defendant No.1.
Mr.Rajesh Mishra i/b Vinod Mistry & Co. for Defendant
No.2.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J . DATED : 14TH NOVEMBER, 2006.
P.C. :
1.There is absolutely no ground whatsoever in
permitting the Defendants to file the written
statement today after the delay of twenty seven years.
The order of filing the written statement was passed
in 2000. Issues were framed in the year 2000.
Recording of evidence is also concluded.
2.In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is
dismissed.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a notice of motion can be permitted to file a written statement after a delay of twenty-seven years post-issuance of such notice.
The admissibility of a bail application belatedly filed after 27 years when other stages of trial were concluded in the year 2000.
The propriety of allowing a defendant to file a written statement after 27 years given that issues were framed and evidence recorded.
S.J. VAZIFDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court