1 NMS818.09.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 818 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3179 OF 1998 Mrs. Prabha P. Shenai. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Crown Maritime Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. ... Defendants. Mr. Ventakkrishnan i/b. Kunduru & Kunduru for the Plaintiff. Mr. Pankaj Vijay for the Defendants. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 22nd NOVEMBER 2010. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsels on both sides. The Summons for Judgment was decided by order dated 11th August 2003 and the Defendant – Company which is presently in liquidation was directed to file written statement within eight weeks from the said order. It will mean that the written statement was to be filed by the end of October 2003. The same was not filed. The Suit came up for hearing and ultimately, it was decreed on 5th February 2009. On the day when the Suit was taken up for hearing and decree was passed, the Defendants were represented by an Advocate as it is apparent on the basis of the text of the order mentioning the appearances. The Court 2 NMS818.09.sxw observed that written statement was not filed within the permissible period and thereafter, the Court has passed an order on merits thereby decreeing the Suit. This Motion is taken out for setting aside decree dated 5th February 2009. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant – Liquidator submitted that the decree is an ex-parte decree and therefore, the Court his power to set aside the same as per Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. 3. Looking to the text of the Judgment dated 5th February 2009, I am not inclined to accept the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Defendant that the decree is ex- parte. 4. Assuming for the moment that the said decree dated 5th February 2009 is ex-parte, the Defendants have not been able to make out the case for setting aside the same. The Defendants are a Limited Company by name Crown Maritime Company (I) Pvt. Ltd. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants informed the Court that the Defendants – Company had about 30 employees working with them. In the affidavit in support of the Motion, it is contended that papers were handed over to the Advocate for preparation of the written statement and the Advocate concerned had not prepared the written statement. In the affidavit in support of the Motion nothing is specifically stated as to in what way the Defendant – Company took steps to see that the Advocate for 3 NMS818.09.sxw the Defendants take steps to file written statement. In my view, the Defendants have shown negligence in the matter of filing of the written statement. It was necessary for the learned Counsel for the Defendants to see that the written statement is filed. In view of this even if it is considered that decree dated 5th February 2009 is an ex-parte, no good reasons shown by the Defendants for setting aside the same. 5. In my view, this is not a case where Court should show leniency to the Defendants. Hence, the Motion is required to be dismissed. 6. Hence, following order is passed to dispose of the Motion :- (i) The Motion is dismissed. (ii) There shall be no order as to costs. 7. Learned Counsel for the Defendants is directed to amend the cause title of the Motion as Official Liquidator has come on record as the Defendant – Company has gone in liquidation. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)