Single Judge allowed Defendant No.2 to file a written statement in an undefended suit after accepting their bona fide explanation for the delay and quantifying costs.
Defendant No.2 permitted to file Written Statement within four weeks upon payment of Rs. 2,500/- costs.
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.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3499 OF 2008
IN
SUIT NO. 3515 OF 2003
Dena Bank.
... Plaintiff.
V/s.
Sitaram M. Bhatt & Ors.
... Defendants.
Mr. John Daniel for the Plaintiff.
Mr. M.A. Narvekar for the Defendants.
CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 12TH FEBRUARY 2009.
P.C. :
| . | The | Suit was | placed befo | re the Reg | istry after | the | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Writ | of | Sum | mons | was | duly | served, | for directio |
ns. | Mr. | |
| Danial, | learned | Ad |
vocate | appeared | for |
the Plainti |
ff. | The | ||
| summons | was | duly | serve | d but |
the | Defendants | and | their | ||
| Advocates | remain | ed | absent. | As | far |
as Defendant |
No.2 | is | ||
| concerned | who | has | moved | the | present | Notice of |
Motion, | the | ||
| Suit | i | s | transf |
erred | to th |
e list |
of | Undefended S |
uits. | The |
directions were issued to this effect on 11th December
statement in the Suit. Hence, the Motion is moved to set
aside this order.
| 3. | I have he | ard Def | endant No.2 in | support | of the | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Motion | and t |
he | learned | Advocate | for | the |
Pla | intiffs | in |
| opposition. | I | have | perused | the | affid | avit | in sup |
port. | It |
| is not |
denied | that | the suit |
summ | ons | was | served | in | January |
| 2004. | However, | D |
efendant | No.2 | states | that | he | had |
:2:
| entrusted | the | matter | to | an | Adv | ocate w |
ho ne |
ver | informed | him |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| that | the | written | st | atement | is | required | to |
be | filed | within |
| a | stipulated | time | fram | e. | The | Advocate | also |
did | not |
take |
| further | steps | and | fina | lly, | he | engaged | another | Advocate | who | |
| has | advised | him | to | move | the | present | Notice | of | Motion | and |
| that | is | how | the | delay | has | occurred. | It |
occurred | also |
because of the illness in the family including that of his
wife.
sought to be explained and that explanation does not
appear to be lacking in bonafides.
| made absolute |
in ter |
ms of |
prayer | clauses | (a) | to | (c), | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| subject to |
D | efendant | No.2 | paying | costs | q | uantified | at |
| Rs.2,500/-. | Costs | to be |
paid | within | two |
weeks | from | today. |
| If costs |
are | paid, | the R |
egistry | to allo |
w | the | written |
| statement to |
be placed |
on |
record | but that |
shall | be | done |
within a period of four weeks from the date the costs are
paid.
for passing an exparte decree on 13th March 2009.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Defendant No.2 should be allowed to file a written statement after the delay by setting aside the不许行使 towards himself the suit.
Whether the explanation for the delay in filing the written statement should be accepted and the Notice of Motion made absolute.
Dena Bank
Sitaram M. Bhatt
S.C. Dharmadhikari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
