Dismissed

Chandra Dev Narain Singh and Ors. v. Emirates Islamic Bank-Pjsc and Anr.

Bombay HC2 May 2014APP/281/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Trial Judge's order condoning 4495-day delay for summons for judgment in a summary suit. Court directed suit to be tried as ordinary suit to ensure defendant's rights. Appeal dismissed. Defendants granted 3 months to file written statement.

What did the court decide?

Suit No.5190 of 2000 to be tried as ordinary suit. Time granted till 31 July 2014 to file written statement.

Chandra Dev Narain Singh and Ors. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2014)

kambli

appl(l)-259-14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

APPEAL (L) NO.259 OF 2014 IN CHMBER SUMMONS NO.792 OF 2013 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.5190 OF 2000

¶7

Chandra Dev Narain Singh & ors. ...Appellants v/s. Emirates Islamic Bank PJSC & Anr. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Y.S.Bhate for appellants.

¶9

Ms.Shivani Khanna i/b FZB & Associates for respondents.

¶10

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SANKLECHA, J. DATE : 2 MAY 2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

This appeal is directed against the order dated 11 April 2014 of the learned Trial Judge of this Court. By the impugned order the learned Trial Judge has allowed the chamber summons taken out by the plaintiff for condonation of delay of 4495 days in filing summons for judgment, for direction to the Prothonotary & Sr.Master of this Court to accept the summons for judgment alongwith affidavit in support thereof filed by the plaintiff and thereafter place the summons for judgment for hearing.

1 of 3

kambli

appl(l)-259-14

Respondent No.1-plaintiff filed Summary Suit No.5190 of 2000 for recovery of certain monies under a Foreign judgment passed by the Court in Dubai. Though the plaintiff had taken out various interim applications in the suit, no summons for judgment was taken out. The plaintiff claims that in 2005 the plaintiff changed its advocate and due to inadvertence the plaintiff did not file the summons for judgment. Since there was delay of 13 years in taking out the chamber summons, the Registry did not accept the same and the defendant contended that the suit should be dismissed on account of the plaintiff not having taken out the summons for judgment for such a long period.

¶18

After considering the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Bankay Bihari B. Agarwal & ors. v/s. Bhagwanji Meghaji & ors., 2001(2) Bom.C.R. 86, the learned Trial Judge suggested , as indicated in para 14 of the impugned order, as under:-

¶19

“14. It may be mentioned that the Court suggested that the plaintiff's suit could be tried as an ordinary suit so that even without taking out the Summons for Judgment unconditional leave would be granted to the defendant. That would be in compliance with the specific observations of the Division Bench in paragraph 45 of the judgment in the case of Bankay Bihari (supra). The defendants, however, pressed for dismissal of the suit. Hence the aforesaid law is considered.”

2 of 3

kambli

appl(l)-259-14

At the hearing of this appeal, we also made the same suggestion to the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants that since object of the provision for summary suit is to enable the plaintiff to get his dues from the defendant expeditiously, therefore even if there is any unreasonable delay on the part of the plaintiff in taking out the summons for judgment, it should be treated as an ordinary suit.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants has very fairly accepted the said suggestion.

¶26

In view of the above, we dispose of this appeal by modifying the order of the learned Trial Judge and direct that the plaintiff's suit being Suit No.5190 of 2000 shall be tried as an ordinary suit.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants, however, prays for some time to file written statement. He prays for three months to file the above written statement.

¶28

We accordingly grant the appellants-defendants time upto 31 July 2014 to file their written statement.

¶29

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶30

(M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)

¶31

3 of 3

Chandra Dev Narain Singh and Ors. v. Emirates Islamic Bank-Pjsc and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Dev Narain Singh and Ors. v. Emirates Islamic Bank-Pjsc and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Gorakh Anand Ghadge Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Irrigation and Ors.

Shri. Gorakh Anand Ghadge Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Irrigation and Ors.

Votal Purshottam Singh Vs M/S.Sonata Housing Company and Anr.

Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Throug Its Commissioner and Ors. Vs Laxman Gopal Gosavi and Ors.

Manilal S. Doshi Vs Sumer Associates and 2 Ors.

Ashish Chandra Roy and Anr. Vs Shriram Chits (Mah) Ltd. and 2 Ors.