Final Order 2

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.714 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.1772 OF 2011
Mr. Murarilal Kalyanbax Joshi ] … Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Parshuram S. Narvekar (since deceased) ]
1.(a) Mr. Ashok P. Narvekar & Ors. ] … Defendants
Appearances :
Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Singh for plaintiff.
Adv. Mr. Manoj Dalvi for defendant Nos.1(a) to1(d).
Adv. Mr. V.K. Sharma for defendant Nos. 2 to 4.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI SHANKAR G.
BORLEPWAR
(C.R.No.20)
DATED : 1st February, 2020
ORAL ORDER
1. Plaintiff took out this Notice of Motion to permit him to
produce the evidence and documents.
2. Perused Notice of Motion, affidavit in support of Notice
Motion and reply of defendant No.1(a) and rejoinder of plaintiff. Heard
both sides.
MHCC01-001855-2019
-- 1 of 6 --
2 NM 714/19 in
Suit 1772/11
3. Following points arise for my determination. I record my
findings thereof for the reasons mentioned below:
Sr. No. POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether plaintiff can be permitted to
lead evidence and filed documents on
record ?
In the affirmative.
2. What Order ? Notice of motion is
allowed.
REASONS
As to point Nos.1 & 2.
4. In brief, it is contention of plaintiff that, plaintiff is an old
person. He is 72 years old. He was not keeping well. He had gone
through the Bypass surgery of heart in the month of June, 2014. Due to
his ill health he forgot an important document to produce on record by
way of evidence.
5. After the crossexamination of P W 1 and crossexamination
of defendant No.2 to 4 it came to the notice of the plaintiff that original
defendant No.1 had filed an application dated 12.12.2000 before the
Court of Small Causes, Mumbai in RAD No.5454 of 1982. The said
application was filed under Order 41 Rule 19 r/w. Rule 17(1) and 18
of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff has taken out Chamber
Summons No.1371 of 2001 in S.C. Suit No.1938 of 1984 filed by the
plaintiff in this Court. The said Chamber Summons served upon the
respective parties. The original defendant No.1 filed affidavit in reply of
the Chamber Summons.
-- 2 of 6 --
3 NM 714/19 in
Suit 1772/11
6. The plaintiff had taken out Notice of Motion No.3336 of
2002 in the said S.C. Suit No.1938 of 1984. The said Notice of Motion
was served upon respective parties. Defendant No.1 filed affidavit in
reply in the said Notice of Motion as Constituted attorney of the
defendant in the said S.C. Suit No.1938 of 1984. The said reply is
dated 16.09.2002.
7. The plaintiff had taken out Notice of Motion No.2178 of
2004 in the said S.C. Suit No.1938 of 1984. The copy of the same is
served upon the respective parties. The original defendant No.1 filed
affidavit in reply dated 24.06.2004 in the said Notice of Motion.
8. Plaintiff had taken out Notice of Motion No.2178 of 2004
in the said S.C. Suit No.1938 of 1984. The copy of the said Notice of
Motion served upon respective parties. The original defendant No.1
filed affidavit in reply dated 20.07.2004. In the said Notice of Motion
as Constituted attorney of defendant No.1 in the said S.C. Suit No.1938
of 1984.
9. The important documents which are part and parcel of
Appeal No.387 of 1999 filed before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in
RAD Suit No.5454 of 1982 are to be filed in this matter. Due to the said
ill health of the plaintiff, he could not file the said documents on record
to lead additional evidence. Therefore, plaintiff be permitted to file
documents on record.
-- 3 of 6 --
4 NM 714/19 in
Suit 1772/11
10. In brief, it is contention of defendant No.1(a) that the suit
is at the verge of the completion. There was sufficient time for the
plaintiff to get the required documents. The Notice of Motion is filed to
delay the proceeding. All the adverse contentions are denied. Hence
Notice of Motion be dismissed.
11. In brief, it is contention of the plaintiff in the rejoinder that
all the adverse contentions raised in the reply are denied and
contentions raised in the Notice of Motion are reiterated.
12. According to the plaintiff some documents pertinent to
Appeal No.387 of 1999 filed before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in
the RAD Suit No.5454 of 1982 are required to be produced by way of
evidence. Admittedly crossexamination of plaintiff is over and
thereafter this Notice of Motion is filed. Considering the nature of
documents, I am of the opinion that an opportunity can be given to the
plaintiff to prove his case. Defendants will get an opportunity to cross
examine the plaintiff on documents which will be produced by the
plaintiff. Hence, I record my findings to point No.1 in the affirmative
and point No.2 the Notice of Motion is allowed as per final order.
Hence following order:
ORDER
Notice of Motion No.714/19 is allowed as under :
1. Plaintiff is permitted to file documents on record mentioned in
para no.5(i) to 5(v) of this Notice of Motion and to lead evidence
if any in support of said documents.
2. Costs in cause.
( SHANKAR G. BORLEPWAR )
Judge, (C.R.No.20)
Dt.: 01/02/2020 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 4 of 6 --
5 NM 714/19 in
Suit 1772/11
Dictated on : 01/02/2020
Transcribed on : 15/02/2020
Checked on : 17/02/2020
HHJ on leave on 06022020
to 15022020
Signed on : 17/02/2020
( SHANKAR G. BORLEPWAR )
Judge, (C.R.No.20)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 5 of 6 --
6 NM 714/19 in
Suit 1772/11
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
20.02.2020 at 12.10 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(VARSHA U. PAWAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI S. G.
BORLEPWAR
(COURT ROOM NO.20)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order 01.02.2020
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 18.02.2020
Judgment/order uploaded on 20.02.2020
-- 6 of 6 --