Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: MHCC010021572018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.569 OF 2018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1566 Of 2013
Hanwantraj Anrajji Jain. …Plaintiff
Versus
Discovery Intermediates Pvt., Ltd., and others ..Defendant.
Appearances:
Adv. Bhavna Jain For plaintiff
Adv. Suryakant Choudhary For defendant No.2
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
N. B. LAVTE
(C.R.No.83)
DATED: 1st August, 2025
ORDER
This Notice of Motion is filed by plaintiff to set aside the
dismissal order dated 29.11.2017 and to restore the Summary Suit
No.1566/2013. By filing reply the same is strongly objected by defendant
No.2. The roznama Dt.28.03.2022 reveals that Adv. Jain submitted that
-- 1 of 4 --
NM 569 of 2018 in Disposed of Su 1566 of 2013.. 2 ..
pleadings of N.M be treated as their arguments. Heard Adv. Bahaduri for
defendant No.2. The suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-
given as term loan by RTGS and by cash. The defendants executed promissory
note on 16.08.2011. Towards discharge of the said liability the defendants
issued cheque No.761926 dated 08.09.2012 of Rs.18,00,000/-. The
defendants failed to pay the amount in spite of repeated requests, hence,
three legal notices were issued calling upon the defendants to pay
Rs.15,00,000/- with interest which they failed. Hence suit came to be filed.
2. The defendants appeared. The plaintiff filed S.J No.342/13 to
which reply was filed. After hearing both the sides my predecessor by an order
dated 23.07.2015 granted conditional leave to defend the suit on depositing
an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- within 4 weeks. The defendants challenged the
said order by filing W.P. No.9233 of 2015 (St. No.22530/2015) which was
dismissed on 09.09.2015. The plaintiff filed Non Deposit Certificate Exh.8.
On 29.11.2017 my predecessor passed following order:
In present case defendant No.2 has not deposit the amount
as per the order passed in SJ.
Defendant No.2 is director of the defendant No.1.
Hence plaintiff is entitled for decree in following terms:
1 Suit is decreed with cost.
2 for decree Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.18,95,753/-
and interest @ 9% p.a on principal amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the
date of the suit till its actual realization.
3 Court fee be refunded to plaintiff as per rules.
4 Proceeding closed.
3. The above order passed by the predecessor reveals that the suit
was in fact decreed and not dismissed. However, surprisingly plaintiff has
filed the present N.M claiming the suit was dismissed on 29.11.2017 and
praying to set it aside and to restore the suit. In the CIS dated 29.11.2017 the
roznama shows as “disposed”. Thus, the suit is decreed in favour of the
-- 2 of 4 --
NM 569 of 2018 in Disposed of Su 1566 of 2013.. 3 ..
plaintiff, however, it seems that without verifying the roznama and without
application of mind, present N.M is filed. Even in the reply the defence of suit
being decreed is not taken by defendant No.2. Thus the N.M is not tenable
for the reasons given above. In the result, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
1. The NM No.569 of 2018 is dismissed.
2. The NM No.569 of 2018 is disposed of accordingly.
( N. B. Lavte)
Judge, (C.R.No.83)
Dt.: 01-08-2025 City Civil Court, Mazgaon,
MUMBAI MUMBAI
Dictated on : 01-08-2025
Transcribed on : 07-08-2025
checked on :08-08-2025
Signed on :08 -08-2025 ( N. B. Lavte )
Judge, (C.R.No.83)
City Civil Court, Mazgaon,
MUMBAI
-- 3 of 4 --
NM 569 of 2018 in Disposed of Su 1566 of 2013.. 4 ..
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
08.08.2025 at 05.15 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME (VARSHA U. PAWAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Shri N. B. Lavte
(COURT ROOM NO.83)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
01.08.2025
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 08.08.2025
Judgment/order uploaded on
due to close of cis.
08.08.2025
-- 4 of 4 --