Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4371 (BOM)

MUDRA COMMUNICATION PVT. v. NATIONAL FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.

WP/10130/2026 · 2026-08-25

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

30 wp 10130 of 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10130 OF 2026 Mudra Communication Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner versus National Film Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr. … Respondents Mr. Prashant Nakati with Ms. Jennifer, Mr. Nitin Wadkar i/by Ms. Savina Bangera, for Petitioner. Mr. S.L.Shah (through VC) with Mr. S.R.Shukla, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Y.S.Bhate, for Respondent No.2. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 25 AUGUST 2026 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 24 April 2026, passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, whereby the Notice of Motion taken out by the Petitioner – Defendant No.1 to condone the delay of 56 days in filing an application to recall the order dated 8 January 2026, whereby the right of Defendant No.1 to adduce evidence stood forfeited, and to permit the Defendant No.1 to adduce evidence, came to be dismissed. 3. By an order dated 8 January 2026, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, was persuaded to forfeit the right of Defendant No.1 to adduce evidence. It was, inter alia, noted that, none appeared for Defendant No.1. It seems, thereafter, the suit proceeded and the Defendant No.2 filed a Pursis closing SSP 1/3 2026:BHC-AS:35123 30 wp 10130 of 2026.doc its evidence. The parties advanced arguments. At that stage, Defendant No.1 took out a Notice of Motion seeking condonation of delay in recalling the order dated 8 January 2026 and to permit the Defendant No.1 to adduce evidence in its defence. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is the contesting Defendant. Money claim is filed against the Defendants and if the Defendant No.1 is not given an efficacious opportunity to lead evidence, grave prejudice will be caused to the Defendant No.1. 5. In opposition to this, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that, adequate opportunity was granted to the Defendant No.1. Even after the right of Defendant No.1 to lead evidence stood forfeited, Defendant No.1 participated in the proceedings in as much as, arguments were advanced and even written submissions were filed. When it was realized that, Defendant No.1 has no defence to the claim of the Plaintiff, to fill in the lacuna in the defence of Defendant No.1, the Notice of Motion was taken out to set aside the order forfeiting the right of Defendant No.1 to adduce evidence and also seek permission to adduce evidence. As the suit is on the verge of final disposal, at this juncture, the prayer for permission to adduce evidence on behalf of Defendant No.1 may not be countenanced. 6. I have perused the material on record. Indeed, there is an element of delay and indolence on the part of Defendant No.1. However, having regard SSP 2/3 30 wp 10130 of 2026.doc to the nature of the underlying dispute, the reasons ascribed for failure to lead evidence and with a view to provide an efficacious opportunity to Defendant No.1 to defend the suit, and obviate possible remand of the proceeding at an appellate stage on the count that Defendant No.1 did not get an efficacious opportunity of hearing, this Court is inclined to grant liberty to the Defendant No.1 to adduce evidence. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner – Defendant No.1, on instructions, submits that Defendant No.1 will examine only one witness. 8. The statement is accepted. 9. The Writ Petition thus stands allowed in the following terms : (i) Defendant No.1 shall file an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of its witness, on or before 5 September 2026. (ii) Recording of evidence of the Defendant’s witness be concluded within a period of four weeks thereafter. (iii) Defendant No.1 shall not seek any adjournment for the purpose of adducing evidence or advancing final arguments. (iv) The Petitioner – Defendant No.1 shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Plaintiff – Respondent No.1 within a period of one week from the date of uploading of this order. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 3/3 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 27/08/2026 12:21:27