Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 540 OF 2020
(CNR NO.MHCC010014022020)
IN
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO. 544 OF 2009
Iqbal Dawood Shaikh ... Applicant (Def.No.2)
In the matter of
Ashfaq Ul Haq Khan … Plaintiff
V/s.
The Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai and Anr. ...Defendants
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. RAJESH K. KHOMANE
CITY CIVIL COURT
GR.MUMBAI ( C.R.NO.06)
DATE : 22/08/2022
Adv. Ms. Priti Shah for the plaintiffs.
None for defendant no. 2.
Adv. Ms. Deepali Patil for the defendant/BMC.
ORAL ORDER
1. This Notice of Motion has been taken out by defendant
No.2 for permission to lead evidence.
2. It is contention of the defendant No. 2 that he and his
advocate were appearing throughout the proceeding in this suit.
However, in October 2019 he was suffering from illness, so he was
medically advised to bed rest for few weeks. In the months of October
2019 and November 2019 he suffered heavy financial lose in his
-- 1 of 4 --
2 N/M No. 540/2020
business. Therefore, he could not attend the court and could not give
instruction to his advocate. After regaining his health and overcoming
several difficulties faced in the business he contacted his advocate in the
second week of January 2020. On inquiry his advocate informed that on
08/11/2019 an order has been passed against him and this right to
adduce evidence is forfeited. According to him, he wants to lead
evidence. So by this Notice of motion he has prayed to recall the order
passed on 08/11/2019 and allowed him to lead evidence.
3. The plaintiff has filed his reply on the Notice of motion and
contested the same. It is his contention that only to delay the matter
this Notice of motion has been filed by the defendant No. 2. Defendant
No. 2 has remained absent since last several dates. Lastly, the plaintiff
has submitted that if Notice of motion is allowed heavy cost be
imposed.
4. I have heard advocate for the plaintiff. Defendant no. 2 and
his advocate are absent since last so many dates. Hence no argument on
the side of defendant No. 2.
5. On perusal of record it appears that Defendant no. 1 closed
his evidence on 20/09/2019. Thereafter the matter was posted for
evidence of defendant No. 2. On 08/11/2019 evidence of defendant No.
2 came to be closed since he remained absent and failed to adduce
evidence. Now by this Notice of motion defendant No. 2 is showing his
readiness and willingness to lead evidence. To decide the matter on
merit and to give an opportunity to defendant No. 2 to rebut the case of
the plaintiff fair opportunity should be given to the defendant No. 2.
Therefore, Notice of motion deserves to be allowed. Hence, the
-- 2 of 4 --
3 N/M No. 540/2020
following order.
ORDER
1. The Notice of Motion No. 540/2020 is allowed subject to
cost of Rs. 1000/.
2. Evidence closed order passed against defendant No. 2 is
hereby set aside and defendant No. 2 is allowed to lead
evidence.
3. The Notice of Motion No. 540/2020 is disposed off.
(Rajesh K. Khomane)
Date 22/08/2022 Adhoc Judge,City Civil Court,
Gr.Mumbai.
Dictated on : 22/08/2022
Typed on : 22/08/2022
Signed on : 22/08/2022
-- 3 of 4 --
4 N/M No. 540/2020
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
( Samruddhi Jadhav)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room No.)
HHJ Shri. R. K. Khomane (C.R.No.06)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
22/08/2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O.on
22/08/2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
-- 4 of 4 --