Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/m No. 341/18 & 346/18 in Suit No. 8145/99. 1 Combine Order.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 341 OF 2018
(CNR NO. MHCC010014052018)
IN
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO. 8145 OF 1999
(CNR NO. MHCC010026441998)
(HIGH COURT SUIT NO. 323 OF 1999)
Mulund Narang Housing Society Ltd. ...Applicant / Ori. Defendant
Versus
Mr. Ramadhar Gupta ...Respondent / Ori. Plaintiff
AND
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 346 OF 2018
(CNR NO. MHCC010014032018)
IN
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO. 8145 OF 1999
(CNR NO. MHCC010026441998)
(HIGH COURT SUIT NO. 323 OF 1999)
Mulund Narang Housing Society Ltd. ...Applicant / Ori. Defendant
Versus
Mr. Ramadhar Gupta ...Respondent / Ori. Plaintiff
CORAM : SHRI G.G.BHANSALI.
(C.R.NO.31).
DATE : 5th NOVEMBER, 2019.
-- 1 of 4 --
N/m No. 341/18 & 346/18 in Suit No. 8145/99. 2 Combine Order.
Mr. R.S.Upadhyay, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Ms. Sandhya Mailagi, Advocate for Defendant.
COMBINE ORDER
Notice of Motion No. 341/2018 and 346/2018 are
preferred by defendant to set aside the judgment of this Court dated
24/07/2017 and for condonation of delay, respectively.
2. Perused reply submitted by plaintiff.
3. Ld. Advocate Sandhya Mailagi for defendant submits that
defendant is a cooperative housing society. During 19/03/2016 to
24/12/2016 Mr. S.M.Gholap was appointed as Administrator. On
24/12/2016 the Administrator has handed over the charge to the
society. Therefore defendant could not get knowledge in respect of
present suit and the judgment delivered by this Court dated
24/07/2017. Ld. Advocate Sandhya for the defendant added that then
Secretary Mr. L.H.Mirani who filed written statement, has been died.
Defendant society had no knowledge about present suit and stage of the
proceeding. Then lawyer engaged by the defendant failed to inform in
respect of status of the suit. Hence it is claimed to condone the delay
and set aside the judgment dated 24/07/2017.
4. Ld. Advocate Upadhyay for plaintiff raised strong objection.
It is requested to note that there is a written statement of defendant on
record, therefore there is erroneous statement of defendant that ex
parte judgment has been delivered by this Court. It is added that
plaintiff has preferred the suit in the year 1999 to claim recovery for the
work of maintenance done by him as per the order of the society. It is
requested to reject the motion.
-- 2 of 4 --
N/m No. 341/18 & 346/18 in Suit No. 8145/99. 3 Combine Order.
REASONS
5. It is to note that the Court has delivered the judgment in
present suit after 18 years. On perusal of roznama, it is clear that no
advocate has represented the defendant when plaintiff has submitted
the evidence. There is no crossexamination conducted on behalf of the
defendant to the witness of plaintiff neither any evidence was led by the
defendant.
6. However, on perusal of judgment given by this Court, the
written statement filed by defendant and the defence raised has been
considered by this Court. There is reference of written statement in
para no.3 and admitted facts are mentioned in para no.6 of the
judgment. It is observed in para no.6 that there was a work order
issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. Accordingly the work of repairs
was completed by plaintiff. There was a joint meeting held between
plaintiff and defendants on 09/07/1997. On perusal of written
statement, it is mentioned that the repair work was of low quality and it
was not completed as per order placed by the defendant society.
7. The suit was before the Original Side of the Hon'ble High
Court from 1999 to 2012 and before this Court from 2013 to 2017.
There is no document annexed by the defendant to show that
administrator Mr. S.M.Gholap was appointed. There is no copy of
resolution of the society attached by the defendant that Mr. Prakash
Keswani has been authorized to prefer present motion.
8. On perusal of judgment, the suit is partly decreed. Plaintiff
has claimed the interest @ 18% p.a., however, the Court has decreed
the suit with interest @ 8% p.a. It appears that the defence of
-- 3 of 4 --
N/m No. 341/18 & 346/18 in Suit No. 8145/99. 4 Combine Order.
defendant has been considered by the Court. On perusal of roznama,
none was present on behalf of defendant for various years. Defendant
has preferred the present motion when execution petition came to be
filed by the plaintiff. In short, there is no substance in both motion.
Resultantly, it deserves to be rejected. Hence the order :
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 341/2018 and Notice of Motion No.
346/2018 are dismissed by combine order.
2. N/m No. 341/18 and N/m No. 346/18 are disposed off
accordingly.
(G.G.BHANSALI)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 05/11/2019. Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 05/11/2019.
2. Transcribed on : 08/11/2019.
3. Signed on : 08/11/2019.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
08/11/2019. 5.22 p.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri G.G.Bhansali.
(Court Room No.31).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 05/11/2019.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 08/11/2019.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 08/11/2019.
-- 4 of 4 --