Interim Order 5

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: 1 Order on Exh.20 in Suit no.632020
MHCC010007192019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
ORDER ON EXHIBIT NO.20
IN
SUIT NO. 63 OF 2020
CNR NO.MHCC010007192019
Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd.
Through R.Krishnamurthy ..Plaintiff
V/s
Pramod Shrivastava ...Defendant
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI VIRENDRA D. KEDAR
(COURT ROOM NO.01)
DATE : 25th DAY OF JULY, 2022
:Appearance:
Defendant in person
Adv. Aarti Ranade for plaintiff
ORAL ORDER
The defendant has filed the present application under
section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’) for corrections
in common order dated 02.05.2022 passed below Exh.15,18 and
19.
2. In short, it is contention of the defendant that in the
common order dated 02.05.2022 due to accidental slips inplace of
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Order on Exh.20 in Suit no.632020
Order 8 Rule 6(G) ( Counter claim), it has been mentioned as
Order 8 Rule 6 of CPC i.e. for set off. It is further contended that
in the common order the Court has failed to mentioned ‘Board of
Directors Resolution’. The above corrections being happened due
to accidental slips, hence needs to be corrected.
2. The plaintiff has strongly opposed the application by
filing reply (Exh.20A). It is contended that this Court after hearing
both parties at length has passed order dated 02.05.2022. There is
no clerical, arithmetical or any error arising from the accidental
slips or omissions. Therefore, the application being devoid of
substance and merits is liable to be rejected.
3. The defendant has filed rejoinder Exh.21 and contended
that looking to the urgency of the matter small corrections in order
dated 02.05.2022, as referred above, be allowed.
4. Heard the defendant Mr. Srivastava in person and the
learned advocate for the plaintiff. Perused the record.
5. It is argued on behalf of the defendant that, in the
common order dated 02.05.2022 passed below Exh.15,18 and 19
instead of the word Order 8 Rule 6 of the CPC i.e. for set off the
word Order 8 Rule 6(G)( Counter claim) has to be mentioned
along with word ‘Board of Directors Resolution’ needs to be
corrected as it has happened due to accidental slips.
6. Per contra the learned advocate for the plaintiff strongly
opposed the application and prayed to reject the same.
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Order on Exh.20 in Suit no.632020
7. After going through the entire record, it reveals that the
defendant in his written statement no where raised the ground of
either set off or counter claim. My learned predecessor in Court
after gone through the entire record and considering the
submission of both the sides have passed the appropriate order. I
do not find that there is any accidental slips or omission in the
order passed by my learned predecessor in Court. Therefore
question of any corrections does not arise. Thus the following
order:
ORDER
Application Exh.20 is hereby rejected.
Application is disposed of accordingly.
(Virendra D. Kedar)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions
Date:.25.07.2022 Court, Gr.Mumbai (C.R.No.01)
Dictated on : 25.07.2022
Transcribed on : 25.07.2022
Signed on :
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Order on Exh.20 in Suit no.632020
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE: 29.07.2022 NAME OF STENOGRAPHER(G I)
Mrs. V. V. Mhatre
TIME:
Name of the Judge (With Court room no.) HHJ Shri V.D.Kedar (Court Room No.1)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT/ORDER
25.07.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 29.07.2022
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 29.07.2022
-- 4 of 4 --