Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/m No. 358/2020 in L.C.Suit No. 8315/96. 1 Date : 23.01.2020.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 358 OF 2020
IN
L.C.SUIT NO. 8315 OF 1996
(CNR NO.MHCC01 0008212020 )
Sheela Sohanlal Ghai and others ...Plaintiffs
Versus
Snehalata Ghai and others ... Defendants
Appearances :
Adv.Gandhi for plaintiff.
Adv.Prakash Lad a/w Sayli Apte for defendant no.1 to 3.
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. A.H.Laddhad
CR No. : 7
Date : 23/01/2020.
ORDER
1. The defendant no. 1 to 3 filed instant Notice of Motion for setting
aside order dated 10.01.2020 allowing Sunita Shinde, Cleark of
Durenllo Convent School to produce documents and Exhibited as Exh.
74 to 80. The defendants further prayed for return of documents to
clerk of School.
2. It is contended by the defendants that the Plaintiff vide Exh. 71
requested for issuance of witness summons to Principal of Durello
Convent School. This court vide order dated 10.07.2019 allowed the
application with specific direction to the Principal of School to appear in
the court in person and not to depute any of his staff member so that
the documents in question can be referred to the Principal and he can
be examined by the Plaintiffs in respect of those documents.
-- 1 of 5 --
N/m No. 358/2020 in L.C.Suit No. 8315/96. 2 Date : 23.01.2020.
3. It is further contended by the defendants that on 10.01.2020, the
Principal of the School did not appear, on behalf of the Principal, Clerk
namely Sunita Shinde appeared. It is submitted by the defendants that
on 10.01.2020, as Advocate P.G. Lad was not available hence, on his
behalf Advocate Sayli Apte filed application for adjournment which was
allowed by this court. However, this court took documents brought by
clerk of the School on record and Exhibited the same. Thus, the
defendants are aggrieved by the aforesaid order taking documents on
record through clerk of the School.
4. The motion is opposed by learned advocate Gandhi for the
Plaintiff. It is contended that the summons was issued for production of
documents. Hence, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants.
The documents are produce from proper custody. Hence, there is no
infirmity in taking documents from Clerk of the School and hence, he
supported the order exhibiting the documents upon production by the
clerk of the School.
5. Heard, both the side, perused notice of motion and record. The
defendants herein have filed suit no. 9471/89, which is pending on the
file of this court. On 10.01.2020 advocate Sayli Apte holding for
advocate Lad filed application for adjournment for crossexamination in
the aforesaid suit, hence that matter was adjourn. However, in present
suit i.e. 8315/96 the clerk of School was present with the original
documents, which were called for. She showed inability of Headmistress
to attend the Court due to her official difficulty. Due to aforesaid
reasons I have cancelled the Bailable Warrant, which was issued against
the Principal of the School.
-- 2 of 5 --
N/m No. 358/2020 in L.C.Suit No. 8315/96. 3 Date : 23.01.2020.
6. Summoning and attendance of witnesses is governed by Order 16
of Code of Civil Procedure. In the given case the summons was issued
for production of documents. Although the summons was issued to the
Principal of the School but the Principal caused the production of the
documents and therefore, this court did not feel it necessary to insist on
the personal presence of Principal, which was in consonance with the
provisions of Order 16 Rule 6 of the Code, which read thus as under:
Rule 6 Summons to produce document: Any person may be
summoned to produce a document, without being summoned to give
evidence; and any person summoned merely to produce a document shall
be deemed to have complied with the summons if he causes such document
to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.
7. Moreover, on 10.01.2020, Advocate Sayli Apte was also present.
She did not take any objection at the time of marking of the documents,
which she ought to have been raised then and there only. (R. V. E.
Venkatachala Gounder vs Arulmigu Viswesaraswami (2003) 8 SCC
752) She only sought adjournment for crossexamination in 9417/89
though application is having both suit numbers. Further the defendants
by way of present motion seeking to recall the order but failed to state
provisions by which court can recall its own order. During argument
learned Advocate Shri Lad argued to consider the motion as Review
Petition. But there are no pleadings to that effect neither he sought
permission to amend the application accordingly. Thus, for the
aforesaid reasons I do not find any substance in the notice of motion
and thus, same needs to be dismissed with cost. Thus, I proceed to pass
the following order:
-- 3 of 5 --
N/m No. 358/2020 in L.C.Suit No. 8315/96. 4 Date : 23.01.2020.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 358 of 2020 is hereby dismissed with
cost.
2. Notice of Motion No. 358 of 2020 is disposed off
accordingly.
(A.H.Laddhad)
Judge
Bombay City Civil Court
Dated : 23/01/2020. Greater Mumbai.
Dictated on : 23/01/2020.
Typed on : 23/01/2020.
Draft Submitted on : 23/01/2020.
Checked on : 24/01/2020.
Signed on : 24/01/2020.
-- 4 of 5 --
N/m No. 358/2020 in L.C.Suit No. 8315/96. 5 Date : 23.01.2020.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
24/01/2020 at 5.00 p.m. (Ms. M.A.Kulkarni)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
Shri A.H.LADDHAD
(C.R. No.7)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
23/01/2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
24/01/2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 24/01/2020
-- 5 of 5 --