Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/m No. 2135/19 in Suit No. 641/18. 1 Order.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2135 OF 2019
(CNR NO. MHCC010059542019)
IN
S. C. SUIT NO. 641 OF 2018
(CNR NO. MHCC010021132018)
Shri Kalyan Asaram Giri ...Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Nana Sampat Jadhav and another ...Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI G.G.BHANSALI.
(C.R.NO.31).
DATE : 1st AUGUST, 2019.
Mr. Pawankumar G. Dhand, Advocate for Plaintiff.
None for Defendant No.1.
Ms. Sandhya Tirmare, Advocate for Defendant No.2.
ORAL ORDER
This is a motion taken out by plaintiff to restrain defendant
no.2 from deduction of installment of loan from the salary of plaintiff.
2. Perused reply filed by defendant no.2.
3. Defendant no.1 is duly served with summons by RPAD. He
failed to appear. In view of roznama dated 16/04/2019 suit is
proceeded exparte against defendant no.1.
-- 1 of 3 --
N/m No. 2135/19 in Suit No. 641/18. 2 Order.
4. Ld. Advocate Pawankumar for plaintiff submits that
plaintiff and defendant no.1 were working as laboratory technician at
J.J. Hospital. Defendant no.1 has obtained the loan from the defendant
no.2 on 21/10/2002. Defendant no.2 has sanctioned the loan of
Rs.80,000/ to the defendant no.1. Plaintiff and Mr. Vijay Rane were
guarantor to the loan. However after demise of Vijay Rane, his legal
heirs are not brought on record and defendant no.2 has obtained no
steps against legal heirs of Vijay Rane. It is added that it is the duty of
defendant no.2 to obtain appropriate steps against defendant no.1. It is
claimed to restrain defendant no.2 to deduct loan installment from the
salary of plaintiff.
5. Ld. Advocate Sandhya Tirmare for defendant no.2 submits
that defendant no.1 is not traceable. Defendant no.2 has issued notice
on both address of defendant no.1. However, there is no response on
behalf of defendant no.1. It is claimed to reject the motion.
6. On perusal of loan papers, it is not disputed that plaintiff
was surety to the loan by defendant no.1. Plaintiff has accepted the
joint and several liability to repay the loan alongwith defendant no.1.
Therefore, the recovery initiated by defendant no.2 is proper.
7. Plaintiff is at liberty to obtain proper action against
defendant no.1 for avoiding his responsibility to repay the loan. The
action of defendant no.2 appears to be correct. There is no merit in
motion. Resultantly, it deserves to be dismissed. Hence the order :
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 2135/2019 stands dismissed.
-- 2 of 3 --
N/m No. 2135/19 in Suit No. 641/18. 3 Order.
2. N/m No. 2135/19 is disposed off accordingly.
(G.G.BHANSALI)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 01/08/2019. Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 01/08/2019.
2. Transcribed on : 16/08/2019.
3. Signed on : 19/08/2019.
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
20/08/2019. 11.05 a.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 01/08/2019.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 19/08/2019.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 20/08/2019.
-- 3 of 3 --