Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM No.599/2018 ..1.. Suit No.17/1989
CNR No.MHCC010022452018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.599 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO.17 OF 1989
(High Court Suit No.423 OF 1989 )
Punjab National Bank .. Plaintiff
Versus
Mohan Gandhi & Co. .. Defendants
Learned Advocate Sagar Ghogare for plaintiff
Learned Advocate Manoj Khatri 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 plaintiff in short is that,
On 11/01/2018 suit is on the stage of crossexamination of
plaintiff. Junior advocate wrongly noted the date of 16/01/2018
instead of 11/01/2018. Due to wrong noting plaintiff and his advocate
could not remain present on that day. Absence of plaintiff and his
advocate is not intentional and deliberate. It is oversight mistake. In
such eventuality if order dated 11/01/2018 is not setaside much
injustice will cause to plaintiff. Hence, this notice of motion.
-- 1 of 4 --
NM No.599/2018 ..2.. Suit No.17/1989
3. No reply filed by defendant to this notice of motion. However
learned advocate for defendant argued that defendant is attending this
suit on each and every date. He is coming from Coimbatore. On
11/01/2018 defendant and his advocate are present. They were ready
for crossexamination of plaintiff. However, plaintiff has intentionally
remained absent and failed to make him available for cross
examination. 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 parties to plead and substantiate their
respective contentions. It is settled legal principle that rules of
procedure are made to advance the cause of justice. They are not
meant to defeat or destroy rights of parties.
5. By keeping in mind this settled legal principles if case in
hand is examined, it reveals that absence is not intentional or malafide.
Advocate of plaintiff contended that due to wrong noting he could not
remain present . In such eventuality due to inadvertent mistake of
advocate, right of party is defeated then much injustice will cause to
party. Hence, to do complete justice notice of motion deserves to be
allowed. However inconvenience caused to defendant is required to be
taken into consideration. Therefore cost is required to be imposed on
plaintiff. Considering this I pass the following order:
: ORDER :
1. Notice of Motion No.599 of 2018 is made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (a) subject to cost of Rs.2000/ by plaintiff to defendant
on or before next date.
2. After payment of cost caption is corrected and suit is kept on
the stage of crossexamination of plaintiff.
-- 2 of 4 --
NM No.599/2018 ..3.. Suit No.17/1989
3. Plaintiff is directed to make him available for cross
examination without fail hereinafter as and when directed.
(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.599/2018 ..4.. Suit No.17/1989
“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 --