This judgment grants a Notice of Motion to restore a civil suit originally dismissed for non-prosecution. The Court condoned the delay and recalled the previous order, directing the suit be restored to its original number.
Order dated 16.11.2016 recalled; Suit restored to original number; Delay in filing Notice of Motion condoned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/3
Neeta Sawant
23-NMS-910-2019.docx
5 February 2024.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 910 OF 2019 IN
SUIT NO. 2592 OF 2012
Vineet Handa and anr. … .Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETW EEN :
Vineet Handa and anr. ...Plaintiffs
V/s.
Ozo Media Estate Limited and Ors. … .Respondents
________
Mr. Tejas S. Mahamuni, for the Applicants/Plaintiffs.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Dated : 5 February 2024.
P.C. :
The Plaintiffs have filed the Notice of Motion for restoration of the suit which has been dismissed for non-prosecution vide Order dated 16 November 2016.The Defendants are served with notices in the Motion. Defendant Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 were represented on the last date of hearing and sought time to file affidavit-in-reply opposing the Notice of Motion.Neeta Sawant2/3 23-NMS-910-2019.docx
5 February 2024.
However, it appears that the said Defendants have not filed reply
opposing the Notice of Motion. Today, none appears on behalf of
Defendant Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. Defendant No.2 is served with notice in
the Motion as is apparent from the Affidavit of service filed on behalf of
the Plaintiff on 24 April 2023. Defendant No.6 is Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai who is not a contesting Respondent.
I have perused the reasons stated in the Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion for restoration of the suit. Considering the explanation given for delay in filing the application for restoration of the suit, in paras-5 to 9 of the Affidavit, I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the present Motion.Learned counsel for the Plaintiff would submit that similar suits have already been compromised by the contesting Defendants with other purchasers. He would submit that in the event of the suit being restored, similar orders by consent can be procured in the present suit as well. Considering the reasons pleaded for condonation of delay and for restoration of the suit, I am of the view that the order passed by this Court on 16 November 2016 dismissing the suit for default deserves to be recalled and the Suit be restored to file.Notice of Motion is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) which reads thus :3/3
Neeta Sawant
23-NMS-910-2019.docx
5 February 2024.
(a) To recall/set aside the Order dated 16.11.2016 and
Restore the Suit to its Original Number which was
dismissed in default and for non prosecution by this Hon’b
le Court vide Order dated 16.11.2016.
(b) To condone the delay in filing the present Notice of
Motion seeking Restoration of the Suit to its original
number which was dismissed in default and for non
prosecution by this Hon’ble Court vide Order dated
16.11.2016.
Digitally signed by NEETA NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2024.02.08 17:56:59 +0530
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the Notice of Motion for restoration of the suit should be condoned.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vineet Handa
Ozo Media Estate Limited
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court