Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 Ord. in NM no.6520 in Suit no.8405 of 94
MHCC010060042020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
ORDER IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.65 OF 2020
CNR NO.MHCC010060042020
IN
SUIT NO. 8405 OF 1994
Raja Construction Co. ...Plaintiff
V/s
Romesh Sharma ....Defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI KISHORE M. JAISWAL
(COURT ROOM NO.01)
DATE : 23rd DAY OF MARCH, 2022
Adv. Nita Mandhyan for the plaintiff.
Adv. M/s. Martikeya and Associates for the defendant.
ORAL ORDER
Perused the Notice of motion which is supported by an
affidavit of Narendra Bhatia who is one of the partner of the plaintiff's
firm. Defendant has strongly opposed the notice of motion by filing
reply on affidavit. I have perused the record. Heard learned
advocates of both the sides.
2. The main suit is for specific performance of the
agreement of sale of 2/3rd undivided interest of the defendant in the
immovable property situated at Bandra, Mumbai. The question
which , interalia, arises for determination is whether the agreement
dated 1/5/1992 in question bears the signature of Mr. Romesh
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Ord. in NM no.6520 in Suit no.8405 of 94
Sharma. I have perused order dated 22/07/1997. The Hon'ble
Bombay High Court has observed that the questioned signatures on
the agreement dated 1/5/1992 and the alleged power of attorney
11/5/1992 were required to be compared with the signatures of
Romesh Sharma on the original Conveyance deed dated 7/10/1981.
On 9/9/2014, the CA of the defendant has made a statement that the
original conveyance deed dated 7/10/1981 was misplaced. Thus
from the record and the orders of Hon'ble High Court, it is clear that
Conveyance deed dated 7/10/1981 was ordered to be produced only
for the purpose of comparing the signatures on the document in
question. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide its order dated
22/03/2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 181/2015 has observed that,
“ for the purpose of comparison, the parties are at liberty to produce
any other document, bearing the signature of Mr. Romesh Sharma,
which was executed before the documents in question”
3. Thus from the aforesaid order, it is clear that parties
were granted liberty to produce other documents which was executed
prior to agreement dated 11/5/1992. In pursuance to said order, the
plaintiff is intending to send plaint and vakalatnama of Suit no.
68/87, it being prior to 11/5/1992 for handwriting expert to compare
the signatures of Romesh Sharma.
4. The learned advocate for the defendant vehemently
argued before me that plaint and vakalatnama of Suit No. 68/87
cannot be sent as those are pleadings and not documents. He has
further argued that if the plaint is send then the 1987 suit will be
halted. It is pertinent to note and is clear from Case Information
System (CIS of City Civil Court) and roznama dated 27/09/2019 of
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Ord. in NM no.6520 in Suit no.8405 of 94
Suit No. 68/87 that the said Suit is already disposed as abated. So if
Suit no. 68/87 is already disposed of, in my opinion the vakalatnama
filed in said suit having admitted signature of Romesh Sharma can
very well be sent for comparison to the handwriting expert. This
Vakalatnama is in a suit of the year 1987 which is much prior to
agreement dated 11/5/1992. Inspite of granting liberty by Hon'ble
High Court, the defendant has neither produced any document on
record prior to 11/5/1992 nor shown his willingness to produce any
such document, so that, it can be sent to handwriting expert. Hence
when in disposed of suit no...68/87 there is 'Vakalatnama' having
signature of Romesh Sharma, it can very well be sent for comparison
of signature to handwriting expert. Hence in the interest of justice, I
pass the following order.
ORDER
Notice of motion no. 65/20 is partly allowed to the
extent that, the Registrar Civil' is directed to produced on record
“vakalatnama” in disposed of Suit No...68/87 filed by Romesh
Sharma.
After production of same, said “Vakalatnama” be sent to
handwriting expert for comparison of signature of Romesh Sharma on
it with that of signature on agreement dated 11/5/1992 and to
submit report.
Notice of motion is disposed of accordingly.
(Kishore M. Jaiswal)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions
Date:.23.03.2022 Court, Gr.Mumbai (C.R.No.1)
Dictated on : 23.03.2022
Transcribed on : 23..03.2022
Signed on : 23.03.2022
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Ord. in NM no.6520 in Suit no.8405 of 94
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE: 24.03.2022 NAME OF STENOGRAPHER(GI)
Mrs. V. V. Mhatre
TIME:
Name of the Judge (With Court room no.) HHJ Shri Kishore M. Jaiswal.
(Court Room No.1)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGEMENT/ORDER 23.03.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 23.03.2022
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 24.03.2022
-- 4 of 4 --