Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM No.600/18 ..1.. Suit No.219/1989
CNR No.MHCC010022442018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.600 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO.219 OF 1989
(High Court Suit No.2589 OF 1989 )
Mohan Gandhi & Co. .. Plaintiff
Versus
Punjab National Bank .. Defendant
Learned Advocate Manoj Khatri for plaintiff
Learned Advocate Sagar Ghogare for defendant
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. ULKA L. JOSHI
(COURT ROOM NO.31)
DATE : 15th March, 2018
: ORDER :
1. Order dated 11/01/2018 is under challenge in this notice of
motion.
2. Story put forth by defendant in short is that,
On 11/01/2018, suit is on the stage of crossexamination of
PW 1. Junior advocate wrongly noted the date as 16/01/2018 instead
of 11/01/2018. Due to this defendant and his advocate could not
remain present and proceed with crossexamination of plaintiff.
Absence of defendant and his advocate is not intentional and deliberate.
It is oversight mistake. In such eventuality if order dated 11/01/2018
is not recalled much injustice will cause to plaintiff. Hence, this notice
of motion.
-- 1 of 4 --
NM No.600/18 ..2.. Suit No.219/1989
3. No reply filed by plaintiff to this notice of motion. However
learned advocate for plaintiff argued that plaintiff is attending this suit
on each and every date. He is coming from Coimbatore. On 11/01/2018
plaintiff and his advocate were present. They were ready for cross
examination. However, defendant intentionally remained absent and
failed to take crossexamination. Hence he is not entitled for any relief.
On all these grounds he prayed for rejection of notice of motion.
4. Normally the Court should decide case after giving due and
reasonable opportunity to the parties to plead and substantiate their
respective contentions. It is a settled legal principle that Rules of
procedure are meant to advance cause of justice. They are not meant to
defeat or destroy rights of parties.
5. By keeping well in mind this legal principle if case in hand is
examined it reveals that absence is not intentional. Advocate of
defendant admitted that due to wrong noting he could not appear. In
such eventuality, if due to inadvertent mistake of advocate right of party
is defeated then much injustice will cause to party. Hence, to do
complete justice to the party notice of motion deserves to be allowed.
However, inconvenience caused to plaintiff is required to be taken into
consideration and cost is require to be imposed on plaintiff.
Considering this I pass the following order:
: ORDER :
1. Notice of Motion No.600 of 2018 is made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (a) subject to cost of Rs.3000/ by defendant to plaintiff
on or before next date.
-- 2 of 4 --
NM No.600/18 ..3.. Suit No.219/1989
2. After payment of cost, PW1 is recalled for crossexamination
at the hands of defendant.
(Pronounced in Open Court)
(Smt. U. L. Joshi)
District Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 15/03/2018 Gr. Bombay
Transcribed on : 15/03/2018
HHJ signed on :
-- 3 of 4 --
NM No.600/18 ..4.. Suit No.219/1989
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
22.03.2018, 5.50 p.m
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME Mrs. S. P. Pawar
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
H.H.J. Smt.U.L. Joshi
C.R.No.31
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
15.03.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
22.03.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 22.03.2018
-- 4 of 4 --