Interim Order 2

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: Suit No. 162/2020. 1 Order below Exh.5.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT 5
IN
LONG CAUSE SUIT NO. 162 OF 2020
(CNR NO. MHCC01-000520-2020)
Ashok Kumar Prayagdutt Pandey ...Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...Defendants
CORAM : SHRI G.G.BHANSALI.
(C.R.NO.11).
DATE : 9th MARCH, 2020.
Mr. Kudalkar, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mrs. Chavan, Advocate for Defendants / MCGM.
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT 5.
This is an application submitted by defendant MCGM for
two reliefs i.e.
a) Permission to file detail reply,
b) To recall the order of this Court dated 01/02/2020 whereby
Notice of Motion No. 207/2020 came to be disposed off.
2. Perused reply submitted by plaintiff vide Exh.6.
3. Ld. Advocate Chavan for MCGM submits that it is a matter
of record that affidavit in support of document was submitted by officer
of ‘S’ Ward Mr. Sachin Uike to support documents annexed with Exh.3
from Page No.1 to 19. In absence of detail reply, this Court has
-- 1 of 3 --
Suit No. 162/2020. 2 Order below Exh.5.
disposed off the notice of motion vide order dated 01/02/2020.
4. Ld. advocate Kudalkar for plaintiff submits that on perusal
of roznama, ample time was granted to the MCGM to submit reply.
Upon hearing at length, this Court has disposed off the notice of motion
with four pages reasoned order on 01/02/2020, therefore, there will be
no question to recall the order. There is no application of defendant to
review the order, nor sufficient grounds are mentioned to recall the
order. It is prayed to reject the application.
REASONS
5. On perusal of roznama, it is clear that matter was posted
for hearing on ad-interim injunction. It is not disputed that there is no
written statement nor detail reply submitted by the MCGM. The
operative order of this Court dated 01/02/2020 is not disputed nor
questioned by the MCGM.
6. On perusal of complete application vide Exh.5, it appear
that it is the contention of MCGM that written statement with reply on
notice of motion be accepted, thereupon notice of motion be heard by
providing opportunity to the MCGM. As observed above, merely upon
list of documents vide Exh.3 supported with affidavit of Mr. Sachin
Uike, this Court has disposed off the notice of motion.
7. Considering aforesaid discussion, it would be appropriate
to provide opportunity to the MCGM for submission of reply-cum-
written statement. The notice structure is protected by this Court, in
view of order dated 01/02/2020, therefore, no prejudice will cause to
plaintiff. Hence the order :
-- 2 of 3 --
Suit No. 162/2020. 3 Order below Exh.5.
- ORDER -
1. Application vide Exh.5 is allowed.
2. Defendant MCGM is at liberty to submit written statement
and reply on notice of motion, positively within two
months.
3. Order of this Court dated 01/02/2020 will remain in
continuation, till further order on Notice of Motion No.
207/2020.
4. Resultantly, Notice of Motion No. 207/2020 be restored.
(G.G.BHANSALI)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 09/03/2020. Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 09/03/2020.
2. Transcribed on : 09/03/2020.
3. Signed on : 09/03/2020.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
12/03/2020. 5.44 p.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri G.G.Bhansali.
(Court Room No.11).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 09/03/2020.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 09/03/2020.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 12/03/2020.
-- 3 of 3 --