Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 23018 in SU 951499 : 1 : Dt. : 09.04.2018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 230 OF 2018
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 9514 OF 1999
(HIGH COURT SUIT NO. 574 OF 1999)
Jiledar Ramraj Jaiswar ...Plaintiff
Versus
Rambahadur Thakurdeen Singh ...Defendant
Adv. Mr. Tripathi for Plaintiff present.
Adv. Mr. Yadav for Defendant present.
CORAM : HHJ DR (SMT.) SRISHTY NEELKANTH
(C.R. NO.02)
DATED : 9th APRIL, 2018.
ORDER
This Notice of Motion has been filed by the plaintiff for
calling for the papers and proceedings in Suit No. 5649 of 1994
including the report of the handwriting experts, for the purpose of
deciding the present suit.
2. The learned advocate of the Plaintiff submitted that the
defendant had filed Suit No. 5649 of 1994 against the plaintiff for
injunction. It was the case of the defendant that by an affidavit cum
declaration dated 30.06.1994, the plaintiff had sold the suit premises to
him. This claim was denied by the plaintiff. The said document was
sent to the handwriting expert. In the meantime, the defendant under
guise of injunction order obtained in Suit No. 5649 of 1994
dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises. Thereafter, due to the
absence of the defendant, that suit was dismissed for default. He thus
prayed that in the interest of justice, the papers and proceedings in Suit
-- 1 of 3 --
NM 23018 in SU 951499 : 2 : Dt. : 09.04.2018
No. 5649 of 1994 including the report of handwriting expert be called.
3. The learned advocate of the Defendant opposed the Notice
of Motion. He submitted that the present Notice of Motion was not
permissible in law. The plaintiff had already closed his evidence and the
defendant had filed his evidence. In the present suit, the papers and
proceedings, as called for by the plaintiff were not necessary to decide
the present suit. Further, the record of that proceeding was already
before the Court and so the prayers in the present Notice of Motion
were infructuous. Further, allowing this application would mean
reopening the case of the plaintiff. Hence, prayed that the present
Notice of Motion deserves to be dismissed.
4. Heard both sides. Perused the roznama and documents on
record.
5. From the arguments of the learned advocate of the plaintiff
and the defendant and from the documents as filed on record, it can be
said that Suit No. 5649 of 1994 was filed by the defendant for the same
suit premises for which the present suit is filed by the plaintiff.
6. In my candid opinion, the papers and proceedings in Suit
No. 5649 of 1994 and the report of the handwriting expert would help
the Court to arrive at a just decision of the case. Admittedly, some of
the papers and proceedings of Suit No. 5649 of 1994 are already there
on record. Thus, the remaining papers and proceedings, if any,
alongwith report of the handwriting expert can be called for and be
-- 2 of 3 --
NM 23018 in SU 951499 : 3 : Dt. : 09.04.2018
used for deciding this suit. Thus, for the above stated reasons,
following Order is passed :
ORDER
Notice of Motion No. 230 of 2018 is allowed.
(Dr. Srishty Neelkanth)
Judge
City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Date : 09.04.2018.
Dictated on : 09.04.2018.
Transcribed on : 13.04.2018.
Signed on : 13.04.2018.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
13.04.2018 at 5.50 p.m. (Y.M. SAKHARKAR)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
DR(SMT) SRISHTY NEELKANTH (C.R.
No.02)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
09.04.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
13.04.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 13.04.2018
-- 3 of 3 --