Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: Notice of Motion No.104 of 2018 Suit No. 7352/2001
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION No.104/2018
IN
SUIT NO.7352/2001.
(High Court Suit No. 2245 of 2001)
Sarita Shashikant Dukhande ... Plaintiff
V/s.
Vanita Vasant Sadvelkar and Others .. Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. GOPAL G. BHANSALI.
(C.R. NO.07)
DATE : 05.01.2019.
Mr.Mohan A. Dharmaraj, Advocate for plaintiff.
None for Defendant.
ORAL ORDER
This is a notice of motion submitted by the plaintiff to set
aside no cross order passed by this Court dated 05.12.2017. The
witness of the defendant was in witness box to continue the cross
examination. Perused a reply submitted by the defendant. It is averred
that on repeated occasion, plaintiff has sought various adjournment on
different counts. There is no medical certificate annexed by the
plaintiff, therefore, the Court has proceed to pass no cross examination
order. It is requested to reject the application.
2. The learned advocate for the plaintiff requested to note
that he is around age of 70 years. He submits that he sought long leave
for treatment for various chronic heart disease. On the impugned date
-- 1 of 3 --
Notice of Motion No.104 of 2018 Suit No. 7352/2001
i.e. 05.12.2017 in the morning he fall in the bathroom and resulted in
fracture of a bone. He intimated this facts to the Court through his
junior. It is requested to peruse the roznama that junior advocate was
present before the Court. Further it was incident of the same day.
Therefore, he could not support it with medical certificate. It is
submitted that due to health issue of the advocate, litigate should not
compel to suffer. The learned advocate Mr. Dharamraj requested to
refer the ratio laid down in Anandrao @ Amrut s/o.Krushnarao
Tirmanwar & Ors. Vs. Prashant s/o. Madhukar Patil & Ors., 2014(6)
ALL MR 686.
3. Considering above mentioned grounds, it would be
appropriate to note that litigation must be adjudicated on merit by
providing fair opportunity to both sides.
4. The suit is 17 years old and the plaintiff is continuously present
before the Court to decide the issue judiciously. It is true that it was out
of control of the learned advocate Dharamraj to make alternate
arrangement to conduct cross examination in his absence. However, it
is worth to note that as submitted by the learned advocate Dharamraj
that no associate of his office may have a grip on legal and factual
aspect of present suit. Considering the old suit and complicated legal
and factual aspect, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it would be
appropriate to provide opportunity. The cross examination is a touch
stone to verify testimony deposed before the Court. The delay caused in
cross examination may be compensated in terms of costs. The notice of
motion is allowed subject to costs of Rs.2,000/. Hence, following order
is passed.
-- 2 of 3 --
Notice of Motion No.104 of 2018 Suit No. 7352/2001
ORDER
Notice of Motion No. 104 of 2018 is allowed subject to costs
of Rs.2,000/ be paid to defendant no.2.
(Suit is 17 years old and partheard, parties to expedite
hearing.)
(Gopal G.Bhansali )
Judge,
Date:05.01.2019. City Civil Court, Gr.Mumbai.
Dictated on : 05.01.2019.
Transcribed on : 07.01.2019.
Signed on :
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
14.01.2019 at 5.45m. PUSHPA RAMESH WAGH
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI G.G.BHANSALI
(Court Room No.07)
Date of pronouncement of Order 05.01.2019
Order signed by P.O. on 14.01.2019
Order uploaded on 14.01.2019
-- 3 of 3 --