Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: :1: NM 93/18 in Suit No.4567/07
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT, AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 93/18
IN
SUIT NO. 4567/07
M/s Panorama Premises CHS Ltd.,
Having its registered office
address at 63, Jaisukhlal Mehta
Road (Green Street),
Santacruz (west),
Mumbai400054. ..Plaintiff
Versus
1.A. Tara Moolsinh Karsanda
of Mumbai, aged about 68 years,
Occupation housewife,
Indian Inhabitant,
Residing at Tulsi Bhuvan,
S.V. Road, Santacruz (West),
Mumbai – 400 054
and having address also at C/o
Tulsidas Khimjee Pvt. Ltd.,
Islam Building, Veer Nariman
Road, Mumbai – 400 001.
B. Mr. Hemant Moolsinh Karsondas
For self and as Karta
Hemant Moolsinh HUF,
aged 47 years, Occ. Business,
Residing at Tulsi Bhuvan,
S.V. Road, Santacruz (West),
Mumbai – 400 054
and having address also at C/o
Tulsidas Khimjee Pvt. Ltd.,
Islam Building, Veer Nariman
Road, Mumbai – 400 001.
2. Mr. Shantu Karsondas
Aged about 55 years, Occ. Business,
For self and also heir and legal
representative of the deceased
Moolsinh Karsondas and as Karta
-- 1 of 5 --
:2: NM 93/18 in Suit No.4567/07
and Manager of H.U.F. consisting
of himself, his wife Usha Shantu
Karsondas, Mrs. Parul S Karsandas
and Mr. Rajen Shantu Karsondas,
All residing at Tulsi Bhuvan,
S.V. Road, Santacruz (West),
Mumbai – 400 054.
3. M/s Tanna Realty
A Partnership Firm registered
under the Indian Partnership
Act, 1932 having its registered
office at “Tanna House”
2nd Floor, II, a.N. D. Parikh Marg,
Colaba, Mumbai – 400 039.
4. The Municipal Corporation of
Greater Bombay
A Body corporate constituted under
the Bombay Municipal Corporation
Act, 1888, having its head office
at Mahapalika Bhuvan, Mahapalika
Marg, Opp. C.S.T., Fort,
Bombay – 400 001. ..Defendants
AND
LA Magasin Premises CHS Ltd.,
A CoOperative Society registered
under the provisions of the
Maharashtra State CoOperative
Societies Act, 1960 and having
their office at final Plot No.63(Part),
C.T.S. No.G/195 A to G/199,
T.P.S.II, situated at Village Danda,
Junction of S.V. Road and
Green Street, Santacruz (west),
Mumbai – 400 054. ..Applicant
Advocate Ms. Dipika More with Adv. Pareira for applicant.
Advocate Mr. Puranik h/f Adv. Mr. Thorat for Plaintiffs.
Advocate Ms. Bokaria for Deft. No.3.
Advocate Mr. Khandagale for Deft.No.4/BMC.
None present for Deft.nos. 1 and 2.
-- 2 of 5 --
:3: NM 93/18 in Suit No.4567/07
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
MS. SUREKHA R. PATIL.
(C.R.NO.11)
DATE : 17th JULY, 2018
ORAL ORDER
The applicant has filed present notice of motion for setting
aside order dated 26.04.2016 thereby dismissing the chamber summons
no. 2278/14 and condoning delay of 572 days in taking out the present
notice of motion and for restoring the CS No. 2278/14.
2. Applicant submits that plaintiff filed present suit seeking
declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the property bearing Survey
no.201, 356 Falni No. 3 Part and Survey No. 357, Plot No.45 and Plot
no. 63 of Santacruz, Town Planning Scheme II, House No. 128, G.B.
Road, Ward A, Santacruz and CTS No. G195 to 198 admeasuring
2826.01 sq. meter including the structure occupied by defendant no.1A,
1B and 2 as lessees. Applicant filed the said Chamber Summons to add
them as a party. On 26.04.2016 the said Chamber Summos dismissed
for default. Earlier the date was 17.03.2016. On that day plaintiff
remained absent and the Court had adjourned the matter. The advocate
for the applicant mistakenly noted the next date as 28.04.2016 instead
of 26.04.2016. On 28.04.2016 advocate for the applicant attended the
matter. The matter was not listed on board. The clerk of the applicant's
advocate inquired the next date. After perusal of record he came to
know that the matter is on 07.07.2016. On 07.07.2016 when the matter
was on board, at that time advocate for the applicant came to know that
the said Chamber Summons was dismissed for default. Therefore, he
filed present Notice of Motion for setting aside the said order and
restoration of Chamber Summons.
-- 3 of 5 --
:4: NM 93/18 in Suit No.4567/07
3. Advocate for the plaintiff filed his reply, thereby stated that
they don't intent to file reply in the present Notice of Motion. They left
it to the Court for the order, but orally submitted that there is the delay
of 572 days.
4. Heard both the sides.
After perusal of record it is observed that on 26.04.2016
the applicant and his advocate was absent therefore, the Chamber
Summons was dismissed in default. There is also delay in filing present
Notice of Motion. As the applicant submitted that they have good merits
in the chamber summons and to follow the principle of natural justice,
it is necessary to give the opportunity of hearing to the applicant.
Hence, I pass following order :
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.93/18 is allowed in terms of prayer
clause 'a', 'b' and 'c'
2. The delay of 572 days is condoned, subject to payment of
Rs.1000/ to be paid to Legal Aid Committee.
3. NM disposed of accordingly.
(SUREKHA R.PATIL)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Date: 17/07/2018.
Dictated on : 17/07/2018
Transcribed on : 20/07/2018
Signed on : 20/07/2018
-- 4 of 5 --
:5: NM 93/18 in Suit No.4567/07
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
21/07/2018 At 4.07 p.m. MRS. K. S. JADHAV
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ MS. S. R. PATIL
(C.R.NO.11)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
17/07/2018
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 20/07/2018
Judgment/Order uploaded on 21/07/2018
-- 5 of 5 --