Dismissed

The Municipal Corp. of Gr. Mumbai v. Pukharaj a. Mehata Sole Prop. of M/S. Mehata Enterprises

Bombay HC3 Mar 2021WP/8954/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge bench dismissed a writ petition filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai challenging an order refusing to admit a time-barred written statement in a civil suit claiming recovery of Rs. 50 lakhs. The Court held that the delay was incurable and payment of costs could not cure the infraction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; order dated 21.01.2019 confirmed; no order as to costs.

The Municipal Corp. of Gr. Mumbai Vs Pukharaj… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

20.wp.8954.19.doc

¶2

Ajay

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.8954 OF 2019

¶6

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.. Petitioner
Versus

¶7

Pukharaj A. Mehata Sole Proprietor of M/s.
Mehata Enterprises.. Respondent

¶8

Mr. Santosh Parad, Advocate for the Petitioner - MCGM.

¶9

Mr. Sharad Wakchoure i/by. Mr. Kishore Thakordas & Co. for the
Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

¶11

 DATE : MARCH 03 2021.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Heard Mr. Parad, learned counsel for the petitioner corporation

¶14

and Mr. Wakchoure, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶15

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated

¶16

21.01.2019 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court, at Mumbai in
Notice of Motion No.4705 of 2018 in L.C. Suit No.7796 of 2001 filed

¶17

by the respondent against the petitioner. The suit is filed in the year
2001 for recovery of a sum of Rs.50,15,702.86.00 along with interest

¶18

in respect of a contractual claim of the respondent against the
petitioner corporation.

¶19

1 of 3

¶20

20.wp.8954.19.doc

¶21

3.The respondent i.e. the plaintiff in the above suit has filed its
affidavit of evidence on 10.12.2014 and the trial has commenced. It is
only thereafter i.e. in December 2018, the petitioner i.e. the
corporation has taken out notice of motion for seeking condonation of
delay and accepting its written statement on record.

¶22

4.Respondent has asserted that, in view of the amended
provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as
amended), the written statement of the petitioner corporation cannot
be filed and admitted especially in view of the order dated 14.08.2018
passed by the Bombay City Civil Court relegating the suit to the list of
'
undefended suits'.

¶23

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that pursuant to
the filing of affidavit of evidence in the year 2014 and the relevant
documents, the cross-examination of the respondent's witness is
pending before the Bombay City Civil Court as on date. In the
meanwhile without prejudice to their respective rights, both the
parties have also agreed to settle the lis. Be that as it may, the issue
before the Court is challenge to the order dated 21.01.2019.

¶24

6. Perused the material on record.

¶25

2 of 3

¶26

20.wp.8954.19.doc

¶27

7. In view of the time lapses which can be enumerated from the
dates mentioned hereinabove the written statement of the corporation
is hopelessly time barred and as stated in the impugned order, cannot
be accepted / admitted by the Court. Today the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner corporation has reiterated its submission
before the trial Court that the corporation is willing to pay the costs;
such submission is in the abstract because if the Court imposes heavy
costs on the corporation, the corporation will not be in a position to
pay the same considering the lis between the parties. Every infraction
of law cannot be cured by payment of costs.

¶28

8.The above submission has been rightly rejected by the learned
trial Judge while passing the order dated 21.01.2019. Considering
that the trial has also commenced as recorded in the order, it shall be
open to the petitioner corporation to put such relevant questions in
cross-examination to the plaintiff's witnesses during the trial.

¶29

9. In view of the above, the order dated 21.01.2019 is confirmed.

¶30

10. Writ petition accordingly stands dismissed with no order as to
costs.

¶31

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶32

Ravindra Digitally signedby Ravindra M. M. Amberkar Amberkar Date: 2021.03.0317:40:25 +0530

¶33

3 of 3

The Municipal Corp. of Gr. Mumbai v. Pukharaj a. Mehata Sole Prop. of M/S. Mehata Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Municipal Corp. of Gr. Mumbai v. Pukharaj a. Mehata Sole Prop. of M/S. Mehata Enterprises

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

Shripati Ishwara Kore vs the Chairman Datta Shetkari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd. Charitable Trust and Ors.

Bapu Rangnath Kale vs Vilas Vitthalrao Deshmukh (Death Lrs.) Suman Vilas Deshmukh

Bapu Rangnath Kale vs Vilas Vitthalrao Deshmukh (Death Lrs.) Suman Vilas Deshmukh

Shri. Abdul Razzak Sunesra Vs Anil Vijay Madgaonkar

Axiom Global Oil and Gas Trading Dmcc Vs Lpg Tanker Anafi(Imo 9411733)

Shri. Abdul Razzak Sunesra Vs Anil Vijay Madgaonkar