Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010014482020
Presented on : 03-02-2020
Registered on : 06-02-2020
Decided on : 05-02-2021
Duration : 1 years, 0 months, 2 days
IN THE COURT OF
COURT 1 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE AT Mumbai,Mumbai
Presided Over by HHJ SHRI. M. S. AZMI
REVIEW PETITION/100028/2020
IN
SUIT NO. 63 OF 2020
Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd
Through Mr.R.Krishnamurthy
Having office at The Times of India Building,
Dr.D.N.Road, Mumbai-400 001 ..Plaintiff
Versus
Pramod Shrivastava
Residing at: Nagla Khangar, Firozabad,
Village Gadokhar, Post Soochana
Tehsil Shikohabad, Uttar Pradesh ..Defendant
Ld. advocate Vijay Hiremath for the plaintiff
Defendant in person
2
-- 1 of 5 --
2
ORAL ORDER
(Delivered on 05-02-2021)
1. By this review petition, the defendant sought relief of
modification of the order dated 17/01/2020 passed in
notice of motion no.4424 of 2019. The Review is on the
ground that the order appears to allow the delay caused by
the plaintiff with malafide intention. The court ought to
have appreciated that the email between the defendant and
one Indu Jain are strictly personal and confidential not
subject to any restrictions by any private or public. The
concerned police at Marine drive police station and Azad
Maidan police station are trying to comply with the order of
Ld. CMM when the evidence of defendant’s passport and
Mrs.Indu Jain properties also destroyed in black colour
suitcase. The plaintiff’s company is not having any right to
leak any personal email of Indu Jain. The material
information ought to have been reflected in the order. The
Court ought to have rectify the order dated 17/01/2020.
2. The plaintiff filed reply on the ground that the review
petition is misconceived and it is nothing but abuse of
process of law. Not a single ground is made out for review
of the order. The defendant continued to disseminate false
and defamatory information about the officials of the
plaintiff through e-mails in violation of the undertaking. It
is submitted that defendant has admitted that he has sent
the emails and the same has been admitted on affidavit
3
-- 2 of 5 --
3
which is also reflected in the order of this Court. The
plaintiff denies other allegations and prayed for dismissal of
the review petition.
3. The review of order is governed by order 47 rule 1 of the
CPC. Order 47 Rule 1 is reproduced as under:-
Application for review of judgment---(1) Any person
considering himself aggrieved---
(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed,
but from which no appeal has been preferred.
(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c)by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes.
And who, from the discovery of new and important matter
or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was
not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him
at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or
on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of
the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desire to
obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against
him, may apply for a review judgment to the Court which
passed the decree or made the order.
(2)A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may
apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the
pendency of an appeal by some other party except where
the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and
the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to
4
-- 3 of 5 --
4
the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the
review.’
4. From the entire text and tenor of the review petition there
is nothing to show that there was error apparent on the
face of the record in the order. There is nothing to show
that there is discovery of new and important facts or for
just decision of the notice of motion no.4424 of 2019 which
the defendant could not produce inspite of exercise of due
diligence when the order was passed. Even there is nothing
to show that there was any mistake by which the said order
was passed. There is no reason whatsoever for review of
the order in N/M 4424 of 2019. The reason assigned is that
by allowing the notice of motion, the Court allowed the
delay cannot be the reason for review of the order. E-mail
between the defendant and one Indu Jain are personal and
confidential cannot be used by any other person cannot be
the ground for review of the order. Even the compliance of
the order of the CMM by Azad Maidan police has even
nothing to do with the said order of notice of motion. The
contention that there is typographical error in order is also
not correct.
5. It appears that review petition is nothing but abuse of
process of law and deserves to be rejected with costs.
Hence, it is expedient to pass following order:-
5
-- 4 of 5 --
5
ORDER
Review petition No.28/20 stands rejected with cost of Rs.3,000/-
to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant on or before next date.
Date : 05-02-2021 (HHJ SHRI. M. S. AZMI)
JUDGE,CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR.MUMBAI
Dictated on : 05/02/2021
Transcribed on : 11/02/2021
signed on : 12/02/2021
'CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
15/02/2021 at 4.00 pm.
MRS.T.C.KAMBLE
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI M.S.AZMI, CR NO.1
Date of Pronouncement of judgment/order 05/02/2021
Judgment and order signed by P.O. 12/02/2021
Judgment/order uploaded on 15/02/2021
-- 5 of 5 --