PRADEEP RAMCHANDRA GHATGE v. MUKESH KUMUR ADUKIA AND ANOTHER

DCCJ333/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 333 OF 2010

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  This is the plaintiff’s application to set aside the order I made on 26 May 2011. On that day I dismissed his application for leave to appeal out of time to be given.  He did not attend the hearing on 26 May 2011 because he was hospitalized on that day, according to him.

2.  On 30 March 2011 I made a decision dismissing the plaintiff’s summons and his appeal against the costs order made by Master B. Mak.

3.  For the present summons which I have to decide today, the plaintiff effectively did not attack the decision I made on 30 March 2011. Instead, the plaintiff asked me to go through the history of the case.  He asked me to take a review of the complete proceedings right from the date of institution of the civil proceedings dated 29 January 2010 in a significant way rather than deciding upon non-material issues as to costs of the hearings which can be decided rightfully at the time of handing out judgment. 

4.  This is a wrong approach suggested by the plaintiff.   What I have to consider today is whether he can succeed in the Court of Appeal if ultimately I grant him leave out of time by setting aside the order I made on 26 May 2011.  Without attacking the decision I made on 30 March 2011, the plaintiff has failed to show how that decision is wrong.  If he cannot show me how that decision is wrong, there is no chance of his succeeding in the Court of Appeal if leave is given for him to appeal to the Court of Appeal.  Hence, I must dismiss his application today and so I dismiss it.

(Discussion re costs)

5.  The plaintiff do pay costs to the defendants summarily assessed at $3,900.