Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
KISHANLAL M. DAGLIYA – Appellant
Versus
PALESHKUMAR B. DHAKAD – Respondent
SS 2927/2003
['M/S N N VAISHNAWA', 'CO', '', 'S J GHOGARE']
-1-
IN
IN
IN
THE
THE
THE
HIGH
COURT
OF
JUDICATURE
AT
BOMBAY
HIGH
COURT
OF
JUDICATURE
AT
BOMBAY
HIGH
COURT
OF
JUDICATURE
AT
BOMBAY
ORDINARY
ORDINARY
ORDINARY
ORIGINAL
CIVIL
JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL
CIVIL
JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL
CIVIL
JURISDICTION
NOTICE
NOTICE
NOTICE
OF
OF
OF
MOTION
NO.997
OF
2005
MOTION
NO.997
OF
2005
MOTION
NO.997
OF
2005
IN
IN
IN
SUMMONS
SUMMONS
SUMMONS
FOR
FOR
FOR
JUDGMENT
NO.124
OF
2004
JUDGMENT
NO.124
OF
2004
JUDGMENT
NO.124
OF
2004
IN
IN
IN
SUMMARY
SUMMARY
SUMMARY
SUIT
SUIT
SUIT
NO.2927
OF
2003
NO.2927
OF
2003
NO.2927
OF
2003
Kishanlal M. Dagliya
...Plaintiff
v/s
Paleshkumar B. Dhakad @ Jain
...Defendant
Mr R. Dave i/b M/s N.N. Vaishnawa and Co. for
Plaintiff.
Mr S.J. Ghogare for Defendant in support.
CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH J.
DATE : 2ND MARCH 2007.
-2-
P.C. :-
1.
From the record it appears that the reply was
filed
in
summons
for
judgment
on
26th
August
2005
and
the
Office
did
not
place
that
reply
before
the
Court,
with
the
result
the
Court
has
observed
in
the
order
that
there
is
no
reply
filed
by
the
defendant.
As
the
reply
was
actually
filed,
in
my
opinion,
it
ought
to
have
been
taken
into
consideration
and
it
would
have
been
taken
into
consideration
by
the
Court
had
it
been
placed
before
the
Court
by
the
Office.
Even
if
the
learned
counsel
appearing
for
defendant
was
not
justified
in
remaining
absent
before
the
Court,
still
non-production
of
the
reply
before
the
Court
by
the
Office
has
resulted
in
causing
prejudice
to
the
interest
of
the
defendant
and
therefore,
in
my
opinion,
the
defendant
is
entitled
to
be
heard
in
the
matter.
Notice
of
motion
is
granted
in terms of prayer clause (a). Summons for judgment be
placed before the Court for hearing on 13th March 2007.
.
Parties to act on the copy of this order duly
authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary as
true copy.
.
Certified copy expedited.
