Dismissed

M/S. Abhishek Enterprises Thr. Its Prop. Mr. Radheshyam Mevalal Gupta v. S. P. Enterprises Thr. Its Prop. Mr. Kamlakar Devnandan Yadav

Bombay HC1 Sept 2023COMAO/14/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Commercial Appeal sought condonation of delay in filing a written statement due to the proprietor's illness. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding the proprietor's conduct dishonest due to his prior appearances before the Metropolitan Magistrate during the claimed illness period and lack of medical evidence for the initial quiescence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Interim Application disposed of.

M/S. Abhishek Enterprises Thr. Its Prop. Mr… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE Digitally signed by MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE Date: 2023.09.08 10:32:27 +0530

¶2

1 4-COMAO 14-23 @ IA 4235-23.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

COMMERCIAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.14 OF 2023 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3625 OF 2023 IN

¶5

COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.736 OF 2021

¶6

M/s. Abhishek Enterprises, Through its proprietor Mr. Radheshyam Mevalal Gupta … Appellant V/s. S. P. Enterprises, Through its proprietor Mr. Kamlakar Devnandan Yadav … Respondent

¶7

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4235 of 2023 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.14 OF 2023

¶8

Mr. Dheeraj Dwivedi i/by Mr. Pankaj Dwivedi for the Appellant.

¶9

CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

¶10

DATE : 01^st SEPTEMBER 2023

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The present Appeal impugns an order dated 20^th

¶13

February 2023, by which the Appellant’s Notice of Motion

¶14

1 of 6

¶15

Mugdha

¶16

2 4-COMAO 14-23 @ IA 4235-23.doc

¶17

seeking condonation of delay for taking out the Notice of Motion for filing the Written Statement in Commercial Summary Suit No.736 of 2021 was dismissed.

¶18

Mr. Dwivedi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the Writ of Summons in the captioned Suit was served upon the sole proprietor of the Appellant on 12^th November 2021. He submitted that the sole proprietor of the Appellant had from 13^th November 2021 been suffering from Corona Virus and was at home in self-quarantine till 31^st January 2022 (i.e. for a period of over one and a half months). He submitted that thereafter the sole proprietor of the Appellant from 1^st February 2022 to 29^th May 2022 was advised complete bed rest and it was in the backdrop of these events that the captioned Commercial Summary Suit was proceeded with ex-parte on 1^st March 2022.

¶19

Mr. Dwivedi then submitted that it was only on 7^th June 2022 that the sole proprietor of the Appellant became aware of the fact that the matter had been proceeded with ex-

¶20

2 of 6

¶21

Mugdha

¶22

3 4-COMAO 14-23 @ IA 4235-23.doc

¶23

parte on 1^st March 2022. He submitted that the sole proprietor of the Appellant once again suffered from jaundice, pneumonia and typhoid from 10^th June 2022 till 17^th September 2022 and was advised complete bed rest for three months. He said that it was thus that there was delay on the part of the Appellant in taking out the said Notice of Motion. Hence, the delay was neither willful or intentional, but purely on account of the fact that the sole proprietor of the Appellant had been afflicted by some ailment or the other since the service of the Writ of Summons.

¶24

However, we noticed from the impugned order that the sole proprietor of the Appellant had appeared before the Metropolitan Magistrate on several dates during the period in which he claimed to have been unwell/advised bed rest. The impugned order expressly recorded that on 18^th December 2021, 3^rd February 2022, 7^th April 2022, 21^st June 2022 and 4^th August 2022 the sole proprietor of the Appellant had appeared before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The impugned order also recorded that even on 7^th June 2022 the sole proprietor of the

¶25

3 of 6

¶26

Mugdha

¶27

4 4-COMAO 14-23 @ IA 4235-23.doc

¶28

Appellant appeared in the Commercial Summary Suit and did not seek time to file his Written Statement. When all of this was pointed out to Mr. Dwivedi, he did not dispute the correctness of what had been recorded in the impugned order. Mr. Dwivedi did not have any counter and/or explanation as to (a) how his client, i.e., the sole proprietor of the Appellant had on the one hand stated on oath that he was unable to file a Written Statement in time on account of illness/bed rest and, (b) how on the other hand he had infact appeared on various dates before the Metropolitan Magistrate.

¶29

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, considered the rival contentions and perused the pleadings. We find that the conduct of the sole proprietor of the Appellant is plainly dishonest. The Appellant has on the one hand pleaded in his Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion his inability to appear on the ground of ill health and thus sought condonation of delay, while on the other hand we find that the Appellant had been regularly appearing before the Metropolitan Magistrate, to which there was no denial. We find that such conduct of the sole

¶30

4 of 6

¶31

Mugdha

¶32

5 4-COMAO 14-23 @ IA 4235-23.doc

¶33

proprietor of the Appellant would by itself disentitle him from the benefit of any equitable relief.

¶34

Even on merits if we were to consider the case of the Appellant, we find that the sole document relied upon by the Appellant in support of his contention that he was unwell and/or was advised bed rest is a “Certificate”, which has been issued by one Dr. Rajesh R. Ram, B.A.M.S. (BOM), which even if taken to be correct, simply certifies that the sole proprietor of the Appellant was suffering from jaundice from 10^th June 2022 to 17^th September 2022 and was advised bed rest for that period only. There is no material whatsoever placed on record to support the contention of the sole proprietor of the Appellant was indisposed from 12^th November 2021, i.e., the date on which the Writ of Summons was served upon him upto 10^th June 2022 which prevented him from filing his Written Statement. Thus we find that there is absolutely no merit in this Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶35

5 of 6

¶36

Mugdha

¶37

6 4-COMAO 14-23 @ IA 4235-23.doc

¶38