Bombay High Court
Ashwin Khater And Anr vs Avinash Khater And 3 Ors on 13 July, 2021
Author: Dama Seshadri Naidu
Bench: Dama Seshadri Naidu
13.07.2021_SJ_8_of_2021.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT No. 8 OF 2021
IN
COMMERCIAL SUMMARY SUIT No. 12 OF 2021
Ashwin Khater and Anr. ...Plaintiffs
Vs.
Avinash Khater and Ors. ...Defendants
********
Mr. Kari Tamboly a/w Ms. Shaheda Madrawala, Mr. Ankit
Pathak and Ms. Shikha Dharia i/b. Vashi and Vashi, for the
Plaintiffs.
Mr. Dharam Jumani i/b. Aagam Doshi, for Defendant Nos.1
to 3.
Ms. Urvashi Bharat Khatar, for Defendant No.4 present in-
person.
Mr. Yash Momaya i/b. Mr. Jayesh Mestry for Defendant
Nos.2 and 3
********
CORAM: DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
(VIDEO CONFERENCING) DATED : JULY 13, 2021 P.C.
1. Earlier, the Court granted time for the Defendants to come up with their application for leave to defend. Within that time, Defendant No.1 did not apply.
2. Now, Defendant No.1's counsel seeks further time; he needs 10 to 12 days. He submits that the time limit of 10 days as set out in Rule 3 of Order 37 CPC does not apply to V.A. Tikam 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2021 21:20:53 ::: 13.07.2021_SJ_8_of_2021.docx the High Court of Bombay. According to him, Rule 221 of the Bombay High Court Original Side Rules does not contemplate any such a timeframe, and that Rule prevails Rule 3 of Order 37. To support his contention, he relies on Standard Chartered Bank vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance, decided on 1st September 2017.
3. At any rate, Defendant No.1 is granted two weeks' time to apply for leave to defend. No further time shall be granted.
4. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have already applied for leave to defend; they have served a copy on the plaintiff's counsel, too. But the Registry has not accepted their application for want of a specifc direction from the Court. The Registry will accept their application for leave to defend.
5. Defendant No.4, appearing in person, insists that she has nothing to do with the litigation; she has unnecessarily been dragged into it. She wants the Court's leave to apply for the deletion of her name from the array of Defendants and also to clarify, according to her, the uncalled-for allegations the Plaintiffs have made against her. Indeed, Defendant No.4 needs no leave from the Court; as of right, she can bring on record her pleadings. Nevertheless, leave granted.
Post the matter on 27th July 2021.
(DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.) V.A. Tikam 2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2021 21:20:53 :::