Allowed

Mrs. Meenakshi Pawan Verma v. Kamlesh K. Panchal and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Aug 2018AO/535/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an unreported appeal against a trial court order dismissing a motion for extension of time to pay costs, the Bombay High Court allowed the appeal. The court set aside the impugned order but imposed fresh costs of Rs. 32,000 on the appellant to be paid immediately to the respondent. If the amount remains unpaid within a week, the appeal will be deemed dismissed. The hearing in the underlying sum

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders set aside; appellant allowed to file response by depositing Rs. 7,000 after paying Rs. 25,000 penalty to respondent within one week. Failure to deposit Rs. 32,000 leads to dismissa

Mrs. Meenakshi Pawan Verma Vs Kamlesh K… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

skc

¶2

12-AO-16436-18.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) NO. 16436 OF 2018

¶5

Meenakshi Pawan Verma .. Appellant vs. Kamlesh K. Panchal & Anr. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. J. G. Damani and Mr. D. J. Damani for Appellant. Mr. Sajid Shamin and Murtuza Slatewala i/b. Shamim & Co. for Respondent No. 1.

¶7

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE: 14 AUGUST 2018

¶8

P.C :

¶9

1] Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

2] Admit. With the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself.

¶11

3] The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 24^th November 2017, by which the learned trial Judge has dismissed notice of motion no. 900 of 2017 seeking for extension of time to deposit costs of Rs.7,000/-.

¶12

4] The appellant had not responded to the summons for judgment within the prescribed period. Therefore, the appellant took

1/4

skc

12-AO-16436-18.doc

out notice of motion no. 2080 of 2014 seeking for condonation of delay. This notice of motion was allowed by the learned trial Judge by order dated 11^th November 2016 and the delay was condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.7,000/- within 15 days. The appellant then took out an application at Exhibit 13A seeking for extension of payment of costs. This was rejected by order dated 17^th February 2017. Thereafter the appellant took out notice of motion no. 900 of 2017, again, in effect, seeking for enlargement of time to comply with order dated 11^th November 2016. It is this notice of motion which came to be rejected by the impugned order. In the memo of appeal, the reason cited are that two Advocates had been engaged to appear in this matter but it is on account of communication gaps with these Advocates that the amount of costs remained to be paid. He further stated that the husband of the appellant works abroad and therefore there was some difficulty in arranging the finances.

¶17

5] Although, the reasons stated are not very convincing, it does appear that the effect of the impugned order is disproportionately harsh upon the appellant. The appellant has tried to blame her Advocates and on that basis applied for some indulgence from this Court. No doubt, the parties should not suffer for the mistakes of their Advocates. However, this does not and cannot be interpreted

2/4

skc

12-AO-16436-18.doc

to mean that the opposite party should suffer for the mistakes of the appellant's Advocates. Greater level of vigilance was expected from the appellant particularly after securing several favourable orders in the matter of filing of defence.

¶22

6] Nevertheless, considering the consequences of not filing any defence, some level of indulgence can be shown to the appellant subject of course to compensating the respondents by way of costs. For no reason, the proceedings in the summary suit which are otherwise supposed to be disposed of expeditiously have been unduly delayed for reasons attributable to the appellant or her Advocates.

¶23

7] The learned counsel for the appellant, on basis of instructions from the appellant, Mrs. Meenakshi Verma, who is present in the Court states that the appellant will pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent no. 1 within a period of one week from today. This statement is accepted.

¶24

8] Subject to the payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- within one week from today, without any further default, the impugned orders are set aside and leave is granted to the appellant to pay costs of Rs.7,000/- and thereafter avail out the benefit of order dated 11^th November 2016 for filing of a response.

3/4

skc

12-AO-16436-18.doc

9] The amount of costs of Rs.25,000/- as well as Rs.7,000/awarded vide order dated 11^th November 2016 to be paid to the respondent no. 1 within a period of one week from today. The appellant is at liberty to even deposit these costs before the trial court within a period of one week. If such costs are deposited, the respondent no. 1 is permitted to withdraw the same unconditionally.

¶29

10] In case an amount of Rs.32,000/- as aforesaid is not deposited or paid within a period of one week from today, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-. This shall be without any further reference to this Court.

¶30

11] Further, the hearing in the suit is also expedited. The learned trial Judge to dispose of the suit within a period of one year from today.

¶31

12] The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶32

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶33

Chandka

¶34

4/4

Mrs. Meenakshi Pawan Verma v. Kamlesh K. Panchal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Meenakshi Pawan Verma v. Kamlesh K. Panchal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Anand Utture, Trustee, Balmohan Vidyamandir Trust Vs Shri Girish Moreshwar Rege Trustee Balmohan Vidyamandir Trust

Mr. Iqbal Hussain Sultan Chaoudhary Vs Amirullah Mohammed Shafi Khan and Ors.

M/S. Direct Source Retail Services Private Limited, Thr. Repres.Amar Daulat Pawar Vs Bharat Harilal Shah

Alliance Infra Corp.Developers Partnership Firm Vs Mrs. Margart Barnard Francis

Manda Machindra Nakhwa Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai "E" Ward, and Ors.

Mrs. Meenakshi Pawan Verma Vs Kamlesh K. Panchal and Anr.