Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM No. 67 OF 2019 ..1..
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 67 OF 2019
S.C. SUIT NO. 1268 OF 2015
CNR NO.: MHCC-01-000221-2019
Mr. Sanjay Dhyandeo Ranpise ]....Plaintiff
V/s.
Mr. Govind Jagannath Mane & Ors. ]....Defendants
Appearances:-
Mr. Ravindra Singh h/f Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi, Advocate for plaintiff.
Mr. Sagar R. Jadhav, Advocate for defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
AJIT N. MARE (C.R.NO.3)
DATED : 20th FEBRUARY, 2021.
O R D E R
By this notice of motion, the plaintiff has sought recalling
of Order dated 22.11.2018, dismissing the Notice of Motion No.
2008/2014 and to restore the same.
2. In brief, the plaintiff’s case is that, all the time, his
Advocate was attending the proceedings. However, on 22.11.2018, the
Advocate could not appear in time and Notice of Motion No. 2008/2014
came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. On very date, the
Advocate appeared before the Court. However, he was asked to take
out notice of motion for restoration.
3. The defendants have opposed the present notice of motion
-- 1 of 4 --
NM No. 67 OF 2019 ..2..
on the ground that, the plaintiff did not tender the said notice of motion
from the year 2014 and therefore the absence or presence of Advocate
for plaintiff would not have mattered. The plaintiff has no case on
merits and intend to prolong the case. It is not explained by the
defendants that, why the plaintiff did not tender the original notice of
motion from 2014 till its dismissal for want of prosecution.
4. Perused. Heard learned Advocate for the plaintiff. Gone
through the written notes submitted by the Advocate for defendants.
5. Whenever the ground for restoration is to be considered,
the paramount consideration will be the ground for absence of the
plaintiff and the Advocate on the date on which the proceeding is
dismissed.
6. Perusal of Roznama dated 22.11.2018 reveals that, the
plaintiff and his Advocate were absent when the matter was called on
for hearing. Noticing that, the original notice of motion No. 2008/2014
is not tendered. The Court dismissed the same for want of prosecution.
7. Roznama further indicates that, on the same day at 3.30
p.m., Advocate for plaintiff appeared. The proceedings further indicates
that, on very next date, the plaintiff has filed draft notice of motion
which is later on registered and is presently under consideration.
8. Considering the proceedings revealed from roznama,
therefore, I hold that the plaintiff can be allowed to prosecute the notice
of motion No. 2008/2014, since not tendering of notice of motion on
that date was due to absence of his advocate. Such lapse can be
-- 2 of 4 --
NM No. 67 OF 2019 ..3..
attributed to his Advocate for which the plaintiff shall not suffer. At the
same time, defendants need to be compensated by awarding costs as
the plaintiff shall be diligent hereinafter. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1. The notice of motion No.67/2019 is allowed and
made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), subject
to cost of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only)
payable by plaintiff to the defendants
2. On payment of cost within four weeks from today
the Notice of Motion No.2008/2014 stands restored
to its original stage.
3. The Notice of Motion No. 67/2019 stands disposed
of.
(AJIT N. MARE)
Judge,
Date : 20.02.2021. City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 20.02.2021
Transcribed on : 22.02.2021
Signed on : 24.02.2021
-- 3 of 4 --
NM No. 67 OF 2019 ..4..
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE TIME STENOGRAPHER NAME
24.02.2021 5.58 p.m. (Mrs. K.S.Bhosale)
(Stenographer)
Name of the Judge H.H.J. SHRI. AJIT. N. MARE
(Court Room No. 3)
Date of pronouncement of Order 20.02.2020
Order signed by P. O. on 24.02.2020
Order uploaded on 24.02.2020
-- 4 of 4 --