Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM No. 586/2020 in Suit No. 6259/2007 1 ORDER
MHCC010015102020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 586 OF 2020
IN
S.C.SUIT NO. 6259 OF 2007
Archana Devi … Plaintiff
Vs.
Pradipto Alo Sircar and ors. … Defendants
Appearances:
Ld. Adv. Ms. Snehalata Shrivastav for plaintiff present.
None for defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR ADHOC JUDGE
SMT. C.V. PATIL
(C.R.NO. 15)
DATE : 14th March, 2022.
ORDER
1. This NM is filed by plaintiff. He submitted that from 2007 he is
prosecuting against defendants. The plaintiff is resident of Pune. He is
travelling from Pune to Mumbai for attending hearing of the Case.
Sometime he could not attend the date in time. Therefore the court has
dismissed the suit for default on 24/01/2020. Immediately thereafter
on 05022020, the plaintiff has filed Notice of Motion and requested to
restore Suit no. 6259/2007 to the original stage.
2. The plaintiff has filed affidavit of service to show that the notice
of motion is duly serve to defendant no. 1. The plaintiff has filed suit for
declaration of Will dated 26051997 as void. He has also requested
-- 1 of 3 --
NM No. 586/2020 in Suit No. 6259/2007 2 ORDER
vacant possession of flat no. 61. In title page of the suit, it is noted by
plaintiff till now he has not received permission to file suit against
defendant no. 3 to 5. The defendant no. 1 is Pradipto Alo Sircar and
defendant no. 2 is Chairman/Secretary of Patrakar CoOperative
Housing Society Limited. The defendant no. 1 is residing in the same
society. Therefore from service affidavit it appears that the plaintiff has
only serve to defendant no. 1. However, he has asked vacant possession
from defendant no. 1, therefore the defendant no. 1 is real contester of
the suit. On perusal of roznama it appears that sufficient time and
opportunities have been granted to the plaintiff to proceed with the
suit. Though it is disclose in the roznama that the plaintiff has attended
suit. But mere attendance is not sufficient, necessary steps to proceed
with the suit are needs to be taken. But the plaintiff has not taken steps,
therefore the suit has been dismissed. The suit is already old one. Again
the plaintiff has requested restoration. The suit has been dismissed
because of negligence of plaintiff. But here the dispute is relating to
immovable property. Therefore considering nature of dispute one
opportunity needs to be granted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has caused
delay and for that he has to compensate. Accordingly following order is
passed in Notice Motion.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion no. 586 of 2020 is allowed.
2. On payment of costs Rs. 5,000/ the Suit no. 6259/2007 is restored
to its original stage and number.
3. The plaintiff to deposit costs within 15 days from the date of order.
4. The costs amount will be credited to state.
-- 2 of 3 --
NM No. 586/2020 in Suit No. 6259/2007 3 ORDER
5. The plaintiff is directed to issue notice to defendants of the
restoration of the suit.
6. Notice of Motion no.586 of 2020 stands disposed of accordingly.
(C.V. PATIL)
Adhoc Judge,
Date : 14/03/2022. City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay
Dictated on : 14/03/2022,
Transcribed on : 14/03/2022,
HHJ signed on : 16/03/2022.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload
Date
Upload Time Name of Tyist
17/03/2022 Mr. Jitesh Suresh Shinde
Name of the Judge (With Court Room
No.)
HHJ Smt. C.V.Patil
(CR 15)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
14/03/2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by P.O.
on
16/03/2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded on 17/03/2022
-- 3 of 3 --