IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY varsha ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6978 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 27 OF 2022 Rajesh Laxmichand Bheda … Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Ketan Vallabhji Veera and Ors … Plaintiffs vs.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and … Defendants Ors WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3301 OF 2022 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 27 OF 2022 Entire Estates Pvt Ltd … Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Ketan Vallabhji Veera and Ors … Plaintiffs vs.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and … Defendants Ors WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8238 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 922 OF 2022 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 27 OF 2022 Ketan Vallabhaji Veera … Applicant/Plaintiff vs.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai … Defendant Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date:

2026.01.13 +0530 through the Municipal Commissioner Mr. Nigel Quraishy a/w. Mr. Dushyant Krishnan i/b. Garfield Clarence Mendonca for the Plaintiff.

Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay for Defendant Nos. 8, 10, 11 and 14.

Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w. Mr. Adhil Parshurampuriya, Mr. Kartikeya Awasthi i/b. M/s. Purnanand and Co., for defendant no. 9.

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 6th JANUARY 2026 ORDER:

1. This application is filed by defendant no.3 for condonation of the delay of 87 days in filing the written statement. According to defendant no.3, the writ of summons was served on 9^th May 2023. Since the plaintiffs had filed an affidavit-in-reply stating that the writ of summons was served on 2^nd May 2023, an affidavit-in-rejoinder by defendant no.3 was filed stating that the summons was served on 9^th May 2023. Learned counsel for defendant no.3, therefore, submits that if the number of days of the delay mentioned as 87 days in the application is read with the statement made in the affidavit-in-rejoinder of defendant no.3, it would support defendant no.3’s contention that the writ of summons was served on 9^th May 2023. Learned counsel for defendant no.3, therefore, submits that the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay be accepted as a justifiable reason for not filing the written statement within time. He relies on the contents of the application, which states that defendant no. 3 is a senior citizen and, due to his advanced age, he was unable to take immediate steps to file the written statement within the initial 30-day period. He therefore submits that the delay is unintentional and that the delay in filing the written statement be condoned. The written statement dated 4^th September 2023 is annexed to the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently opposes the application for condonation of delay. The main objection to oppose the application is on the ground that the writ of summons was served upon defendant no.3 on 2^nd May 2023, and thus, the application for condonation of delay is filed beyond 120 days permitted under the amended Rule 1 of Order VIII of the CPC, applicable to a commercial suit. He submits that after the period of 120 days from the date of service of the writ of summons, the defendant’s right to file a written statement is forfeited, and the time cannot be extended. He therefore submits that the delay in filing the written statement beyond 120 days from the date of service of the writ of summons cannot be condoned.

3. Pursuant to the order dated 16^th December 2025, a report dated 5^th January 2026, prepared by the Deputy Sheriff, Mumbai, is placed on record. There is no satisfactory explanation regarding not taking steps to file a service report of the Bailiff as required under the sub-rule (3) of Rule 448 of Chapter XXVIII of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 (‘the OS Rules’). The report states that the online complaint dated 5^th July 2023 was lodged by the office of the Sheriff, and the tracking report indicates that the Bhaily SO delivered the article on 2^nd May 2023. In the affidavit-in-reply, the pl