Date: 06-02-2019
Business: Adv Ravindra Singh for plff present.
Plff present.
Adv Mrs.Bhoir for BMC/deft. present.
Original NM No.509/19 @ affidavit tendered by plff.
Adjd to 27/02/2019 for NM reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2019
Date: 27-02-2019
Business: Court is on leave. Hence, matter is adjourned.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 20-03-2019
Date: 20-03-2019
Business: Plff present and his Adv. absent.
Adv. Mrs. Smita Chavan for MCGM/Deft present.
On oral request of advocate for Defendant/MCGM, adjournment granted.
Adjd to 22/4/2019 for N/M reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 22-04-2019
Date: 22-04-2019
Business: None for Plff.
Adv. Mrs. Bhoir for MCGM/Deft present.
On oral request of advocate for Defendant/MCGM, adjournment granted as a last chance.
Adjd to 7/6/2019 for N/M reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2019
Date: 07-06-2019
Business: Adv. R. L. Singh for plaintiff present.
Adv. Ms. Patil for MCGM Def. Present.
On oral request of ld adv for def., adjournment granted as a last chance.
Adjd to 17.06.2019 for NM reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 17-06-2019
Date: 17-06-2019
Business: Adv. R. L. Singh for plaintiff present.
Adv. Ms. Patil for MCGM/Def. present and filed reply to NM No. 509/18.
Adjd to 27.06.2019 for NM rejoinder/hearing.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2019
Date: 27-06-2019
Business: Adv. R. L. Singh for plaintiff present.
Plaintiff present.
Adv. Ms. Patil for MCGM/Defendant present
In connected suit no. 2424/09, defendant MCGM has filed NM reply today and said matter is fixed for NM hearing on next date. Hence this matter is adjourned.
Adjd to 18.07.2019 for NM hearing.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2019
Date: 18-07-2019
Business: Plaintiff present, his advocate is absent.
Adv. Ms. Patil for MCGM/Defendant present.
On oral request of plff, adjournment granted as a last chance.
Adjd 30.07.2019 to for NM hearing.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 30-07-2019
Date: 30-07-2019
Business: Adv. R. L. Singh for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mrs. Hajare h/f Adv. Ms. Patil for MCGM/Deft. present.
Heard arguments of Adv. for plaintiff.
Adjd to 06.08.2019 for arguments of defendant.
Next Purpose: NM ARGUMENTS P.H.
Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2019
Date: 06-08-2019
Business: Adv. Mr. Ravindra Singh for Plaintiff present.
Adv. Ms. Patil for MCGM/Defendant present.
Kb
Later on
Heard arguments Adv. Ms. Patil for MCGM/defendant.
Adjd. to 07/08/2019 for order
Next Purpose: ORDER
Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2019
Date: 07-08-2019
Business: None for plaintiff.
Adv. Khandagle h/f Adv. Ms. Patil for MCGM/Deft. present.
Order on NM No. 509/19
By instant NM the plaintiff has prayed to direct defendant/MCGM to file affidavit and produce documents in respect of alleged action in respect of the suit premises and to appoint Court Commissioner to visit the suit premises and submit report. The defendant/MCGM strongly resisted the application by filing reply and contended that the plaintiff wants to delay the matter and he is in habit of making unauthorized constructions after getting interim orders. According to ld. Adv. for plaintiff if the defendant/MCGM claims that demolition action was taken by it against the suit premises, they should bring documents supporting the said claim and therefore such documents are necessary for deciding the suit. He has further argued that the appointment of Court Commissioner is necessary to bring true facts and status of the suit premises before the Court and the plaintiff is not collecting any evidence by seeking appointment of Court Commissioner.
After going through the record of this very old matter of the year 2010, it can be seen that the plaintiff tendered many notice of motions in this suit. The instant NM is to direct defendant/MCGM to produce documents in respect of alleged demolition action against the suit premises. In the plaint the prayers are for permanent injunction restraining defendant/MCGM from demolishing the suit premises without following due process of law. If the defendant/MCGM claims that the suit premises is demolish, then the burden is upon it to prove the same in view of section 103 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. the plaintiff has to prove his own case to get the reliefs claim in the plaint. For these reasons, the prayer for direction to defendant/MCGM to produce documents and to tender affidavit about alleged demolition action against the suit premises is rejected.
As discussed herein earlier, the burden is on plaintiff to prove his case. Even if he claims that by appointment of Court Commissioner he is not collecting any evidence, he is praying to appoint the Court Commissioner to visit the suit premises and to know the status thereof. Under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC Court Commission for appointed for local investigation if such appointment is found to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. After going through the pleadings, the plaintiff wants appointment of Court Commission to prove his case of authorization of suit structure and existence thereof even after alleged demolition by defendant/MCGM. That can be done by adducing evidence by the plaintiff himself. Appointment of Court Commission for the said purpose is neither requisite nor proper for elucidating the matter in dispute. For both these reasons the NM is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.
Adjd to 26.08.2019 for cross examination of DW 1.
Nature Of Disposal: DISMISSED
Disposal Date: 07-08-2019
