Partly allowed

Jay Jayantilal Shah and Ors. v. Zalawad Jain Co-Op.Hsg. Soc. and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Oct 2018S/182/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed Suit No.182 of 1992 for want of prosecution due to undelivered service. For Suit No.899 of 2016, the suit was likely to be dismissed for unserved defendants and transferred to the list of undefended suits for served defendants where the written statement was overdue. The plaintiff was ordered to pay a donation and file an affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Suit No.182 of 1992 dismissed. Suit No.899 of 2016 dismissed against unserved defendants; transferred to undefended suits against served defendants.

Jay Jayantilal Shah and Ors. Vs Zalawad Jain… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1/3

¶2

21.suit182.92.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

SUIT NO.182 OF 1992

¶5

Jay Jayantilal Shah& Ors. V/s.

¶6

Zalawad Jain Co-op. Housing Society & Ors. )....Defendants

¶7

WITH

¶8

SUIT NO.899 OF 2016

¶9

Mukhtar Hussain Mohammed Khimji alias Gowa)....Plaintiff

¶10

V/s.

¶11

Zalawad Jain Co-op. Housing Society & Ors. )....Defendants

¶12

None for plaintiffs in Suit No.182 of 1992.

¶13

Mr.Pravin B.Gole for plaintiffs in Suit No.899 of 2016.

¶14

Mr.Rajiv Hingu I/by L.H.Hingu for defendant no.14 in Suit No.182 of 1992.

¶15

Ms.J.N.Pandhi I/by Khona & Kayser for defendant no.19 in Suit 182 of 1992.

¶16

Mr.M.A.Sayeed, AGP for defendant nos.17, 18, 19 22, 29 & 30 in Suit No.899 of 2016.

¶17

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 12.10.2018

¶18

P.C.:-

¶19

SUIT NO.182 OF 1992

¶20

Pursuant to order dated 31.8.2018, an attempt was made

¶21

by the registry to serve plaintiffs with a copy of the said order as plaintiffs were not present on 31.8.2018. Registry has filed report stating that the envelopes sent to plaintiff no.1-Jaya Jayantilal Shah,

21.suit182.92.doc

2/3

3(a)-Devangana Ashok Mody & 3(b)-Alpana Rajesh Mall came back undelivered with endorsements as mentioned therein.

¶26

Therefore, suit dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶27

SUIT NO.899 OF 2016

¶28

Pursuant to the order dated 31.8.2018 which was served on plaintiff, plaintiff is represented today by Advocate Mr.Pravin B. Gole. Mr.Gole is unable to even state which of the defendants have been served and which of the defendants have not been served.

¶29

So far as defendants who have not been served, the suit shall stand dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶30

So far as defendants who have been served are concerned, on 31.8.2018 time was granted upto 15.9.2018 to file written statement. We are on 12.10.2018 and till date even the State has not filed written statement. Therefore, suit as against defendants who have been served to be transferred to the list of undefended suits and to be placed before the appropriate court.

¶31

¶32

3/3 21.suit182.92.doc

¶33

On or before 15.10.2018 plaintiffs shall file an affidavit of service clearly stating which of the defendants have been served with proof of service. Only to consider this affidavit, stand over to 19.10.2018 for directions. It has to be noted that even before the Prothonotary & Senior Master on 20.7.2017, none had appeared for plaintiff. Cause list was prepared and released on 6.10.2018 and the least, plaintiff's Advocate should have done is to go through the records and prepare to answer which of the defendants have been served. Thrice the counsel was asked and his reply was standard “some defendants”. Therefore, for wasting court's time, donation of Rs.10,000/- be paid by plaintiff before 19.10.2018 to Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai. Plaintiff also to file affidavit of compliance.

¶34

Jahagirdar Kiran Ganesh

¶35

Digitally signed by Jahagirdar Kiran (K.R.SHRIRAM,J) Ganesh Date: 2018.10.12 07:40:36 +0530

¶36

Jay Jayantilal Shah and Ors. v. Zalawad Jain Co-Op.Hsg. Soc. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Jayantilal Shah and Ors. v. Zalawad Jain Co-Op.Hsg. Soc. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Likproof India Pvt. Ltd. Cin No. 74999MH1984PTC034158

Jehangir Adi Wadia and 3 Ors. Vs Reshamsingh Pyarasingh and 7 Ors.

Yogesh Mehta Vs the Stock Exchange,Mumbai and Ors.

I.C.Corporation. Vs Dawoo Corpn.and Ors.

Union of India and Anr. Vs Scindia Steam Navigation'Co.Ltd. and Anr.

Lakhsmi Ganpathy Films Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kinesis Films Pvt. Ltd. Cin NOU74900MH2009PTC193705