Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 642-19 in S.C. Suit no. 2998-15
1 Date : 18.11.2019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 642 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 2998 OF 2015
(CNR NO.MHCC010016632019 )
Deviprasad Govind Nigam .. Plaintiff
Versus
Hemraj L. Punamiya .. Defendant
Appearances :
Adv.Priyank Shukla for plaintiff present.
Adv.A.K.Pathak for defendant present.
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. A.H.Laddhad
Additional Judge
CR No. : 7
Date : 18.11.2019
ORDER
1. The defendant find instant Notice of Motion for setting aside
“No Cross Order” dated 10.01.2019.
2. It is contended by the defendant that the plaintiff filed
present suit with sole intention to harass him. The suit filed by the
plaintiff is false and bogus. During course of argument, the
advocate for defendant argued that he is ready to crossexamine
the witness. Hence, the Notice “No Cross Order” be set aside.
-- 1 of 4 --
NM 642-19 in S.C. Suit no. 2998-15
2 Date : 18.11.2019
3. The Notice of Motion is opposed by the plaintiff on the
ground that the defendant failed to assign any reason as to why on
10.01.2019 he has not conducted the crossexamination of the
plaintiff witness. Hence, such Notice of Motion could not be
allowed.
4. Heard both the sides. Perused Notice of Motion, say and
Roznama. In the present matter, the plaintiff filed Affidavit of
Examination in Chief on 19.12.2017 and thereafter the matter was
proceeded. However, on 10.01.2019, the matter was specifically
kept for the crossexamination of the plaintiff witness. The
advocate for the defendant was present when the matter was
called out first time, but he was not ready to crossexamined the
plaintiff witness. The advocate of the defendant requested for
time. My Predecessor did not find his prayer as reasonable.
Therefore, the prayer was rejected. Therefore, the matter was
again called out at 11.50 a.m. At that time, the defendant’s
Advocate was absent.
5. I have also perused evidence in support of the Notice of
Motion. The defendant failed to assigned a single reason for not
conducting the crossexamination on 10.01.2019. Thus, it appears
that the Advocate of defendant purposefully remained absent and
allow to pass “No Cross Order”. Thus, from the aforesaid conduct,
it appears that it is just due to the advocate of defendant, the Cross
was closed. In my view, due to the fault of lawyer, client should
-- 2 of 4 --
NM 642-19 in S.C. Suit no. 2998-15
3 Date : 18.11.2019
not be suffered. The advocate for defendant is now ready to cross
examine the witness. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in my
view, “No Cross order can be set aside subject to the condition of
payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/ by the defendant to the plaintiff
witness. Thus, I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 642 of 2019 is hereby allowed.
2. No Cross Order dated 10.01.2019 is hereby recalled subject
to payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/ by the defendant to the
plaintiff and upon payment of the aforesaid cost defendant
is permitted to cross examine witness.
3. Cost of Notice of Motion be saddled upon defendant.
4. Notice of Motion No. 642 of 2019 is disposed off
accordingly.
(A.H.Laddhad)
Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court,
Dated : 18.11.2019 Greater Bombay.
Dictated on : 18.11.2019
Typed on : 18.11.2019
Draft Submitted on : 18.11.2019
Checked on : 19.11.2019
Signed on : 19.11.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
NM 642-19 in S.C. Suit no. 2998-15
4 Date : 18.11.2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
19/11/2019 at 4.00 p.m. (Ms. V.V.Sawant)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
Shri A.H.LADDHAD
(C.R. No.7)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
18/11/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
19/11/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 19/11/2019
-- 4 of 4 --