Bombay High Court
MUDRA COMMUNICATION PVT.versusNATIONAL FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that, despite the delay, condonation was warranted to give the defendant an efficacious opportunity to defend, and therefore the order forfeiting the right to adduce evidence was set aside.
Summary
Mudra Communication Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging a City Civil Court order dated 8 January 2026 that forfeited Defendant No.1's right to adduce evidence after it failed to appear. Defendant No.1 later moved for condonation of a 56‑day delay in seeking to recall that order and to be permitted to present evidence. The petitioner argued that denying the evidence would cause grave prejudice, while the plaintiff contended that the defendant had already participated through arguments and submissions and that allowing evidence at this late stage would disrupt the impending final disposal. The High Court, noting the delay but also the nature of the dispute and the need to avoid a possible appellate remand for lack of a fair hearing, granted liberty to the defendant to adduce evidence. The court ordered the defendant to file an affidavit in lieu of examination by 5 September 2026, complete evidence within four weeks, refrain from further adjournments, and pay Rs.10,000 costs to the plaintiff. The writ petition was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a 56‑day delay in filing a motion to recall the forfeiture of the right to adduce evidence can be condoned.
- Whether the forfeiture of a party's right to lead evidence may be set aside at a late stage of the suit.
- Whether permitting the admission of evidence at this stage would prejudice the plaintiff or affect the final disposal of the suit.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- right to adduce evidence
- civil procedure
- forfeiture of evidence
- writ petition
- costs
- evidentiary hearing
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:35123
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
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
Checking your session…