Lascelles Symons v. Hilaire D Souza

Before : Anil H. Laddhad, FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :

Ms. Pooja Yadav I/b. Jayakar and Partners, Advocate for the applicant/plaintiff.

Mr. Sanjay Jain a/w. Praful Valvi, Advocate for defendant no. 1.

Ms. Priyasha Pawar i/b. Abhay Nevagi and Associates, Advocate for defendant no. 2.

Mr. S. M. Sharma i/b. Bhardwaj Mittar Sain Mukat Bihari, Advocate for defendant no. 6.

P.C.:

The present Chamber Order is filed by the applicant for setting aside Order dated 08.05.2025, rejecting captioned Suit under O.S.Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant tenders Affidavit of Service, showing service of Chamber Order upon defendants, which is taken on record.

Heard ld. Advocate for the applicant. Perused Affidavit in Support, contents of which are self-explanatory. It is contended that Advocate Assistant handling the Suit ceased to be a part of firm. Unfortunately, there was some miscommunication and Conditional Order was not informed to the new Advocate. It is further contended that for the aforesaid reasons, there was 70 days delay caused in filing present Chamber Order, which was not intentional.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant submits that they were not aware about conditional order since matter was continuously listed before the Hon'ble Court. Ld. Advocate therefore, prays that captioned Suit may be restored to file by condoning delay.

2 Before : Anil H. Laddhad, contd....

Ld. Advocates for defendant nos. 2 and 6 give no objection for restoration of Suit.

Ld. Advocate for defendant no. 1 made a statement that defendant no. 1 is the only contesting party. Statement is accepted. Ld. Advocate for defendant no. 1 objected present Chamber Order and prayed for rejection of the same.

In the present matter by Conditional Order dated 08.05.2025, the plaintiff was directed to remove office objections within four weeks. However, thereafter matter was listed before the Hon'ble Court and disposal was not taken by the department in C.I.S.. Therefore, the plaintiff was not aware about Conditional Order. Reasons stated in Affidavit in Support are accepted. Ld. Advocate undertakes to remove office objections within four working weeks. Undertaking is accepted. In view thereof, I am of the view that one opportunity is required to be given to the plaintiff to pursue with the captioned Suit. However, it would be just and proper to impose certain cost on the plaintiff, so that, the plaintiff would be more diligent in pursuing with the suit. Hence, in the interest of justice, delay of 70 days caused in filing present Chamber order is condoned and present Chamber Order is granted as prayed subject to payment of cost of Rs, 2,500/- to 'The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai' - Bank of India, Mumbai (Main) Branch, Account No. 000120110001337, IFSC CODE :

BKID0000001. Chamber Order is signed separately.

Upon payment of cost, suit be restored to file and the plaintiff to remove office objections of Suit and get the same registered/numbered within four working weeks from the date of payment of cost, failing Suit to stand rejected

3 Before : Anil H. Laddhad, contd....

for non-removal of office objections under O.S. Rule 986.

Date : 10.04.2026 Prothonotary and Senior Master Digitally signed by RAJEEV VIJAY ACHARYA Date:

2026.04.15 11:58:52 +0530 RAJEEV VIJAY ACHARYA