Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: :1: Ch. S. No.329/2018 in Suit No.7420/1980
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
CHAMBR SUMMONS NO. 329 OF 2018
CNR NO.: MHCC010023152018
IN
CONTEMPT NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1340 OF 2017
IN
SUIT NO. 7420 OF 1980
(HIGH COURT SUIT NO. 358 OF 1980)
Chintaman Bhaskar Mali ...Applicant (Ori. Defendant No.14)
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :
Chintaman Bhaskar Mali ...Applicant (Org. Defendant No.14)
Versus
Amrish J. Agarwal ...Respondent (Org. Plaintiff)
Versus
Kanayalal Kalooji Jain & Ors. ...Respondents (Org. Defendants)
Appearances:
Advocate Mr. Jain for the plaintiff.
Advocate Mr. Vijay Kurle for defendant No.14.
Advocate Mr. Ajit Salvi for defendant Nos. 13 and 16.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
S.P. AGARWAL
(C.R.NO.28)
DATED : 3rd APRIL, 2019.
ORAL ORDER
1. In the affidavit of Chamber Summons, applicant has stated that
-- 1 of 5 --
:2: Ch. S. No.329/2018 in Suit No.7420/1980
Contempt Notice of Motion No.1340/2017 was filed against his wife as
she had committed breach of injunction order dated 26.11.1992 passed
by the Hon'ble High Court. He has further stated that only after the
Contempt Notice of Motion was served upon his wife, he came to know
about the suit. He has stated that he was made party i.e. the defendant
No.14 to the suit bearing No.7420 of 1980 but he was not served with
the Copy of the suit. He has further stated that he is not having the copy
of the suit. He has stated that he wants to file say on the application,
Notice of Motion or any other documents filed pertaining to the subject
matter of the suit and prayed to direct respondents to supply copy of
entire suit bearing No.7420/1980 and allow him to file reply to all
applications, motions regarding subjectmatter of the suit. He has stated
that he has not signed on any Vakalatnama in the name of the Legal
Firm M/s. Arvind Rathod & Co. and it is shocking and surprising for him
to know about that the Legal Firm has filed written statement in the
present suit on behalf of the applicant. Applicant has further stated that
he has not given any Vakalatnama to any such Legal Firm and it is very
serious if anybody is representing on behalf of applicant without his
authority and knowledge. He has further stated that in spite of all this
for sake of an argument if it is true that the said Legal Firm has
appeared on behalf of the applicant and filed Written Statement in the
Court, it can only be a fraud that has been played going handinglow
with the interested parties in the suit and it need to be investigated by
the Court.
2. Plaintiff has filed reply to this Chamber Summons and stated
that the applicant i.e. Defendant No.14 was from time to time duly
served with copies of the papers and proceedings in the suit either
personally or through his Advocate. Plaintiff has stated that the
-- 2 of 5 --
:3: Ch. S. No.329/2018 in Suit No.7420/1980
applicant i.e. defendant No.14 has filed Written Statement on 13th
October 1997, in the suit in his individual capacity. Plaintiff has stated
that on most of the dates applicant appeared through his Advocate and
Solicitor M/s. Arvind Rathod & Co. in the suit. Plaintiff has stated that
applicant has suppressed the fact that he was represented through his
Advocate M/s. Arvind Rathod & Co. on record. Plaintiff has stated that
copies of amended Plaint were served upon defendant No.14 through
their Advocate and they are filed with this reply. Plaintiff has further
stated that the Contempt Proceeding was also filed against the applicant
also and a packet containing the same and Affidavit in support was
transmitted to the applicant by RPAD, however the applicant
deliberately did not accept the delivery of such packet and the said
packet returned back by Postal Authority with the remark “Intimation
Posted/Unclaimed”. Plaintiff has further stated that the papers and
proceedings of the above suit are bulk and voluminous, which have
been already been served upon defendant from time to time. Plaintiff
has stated that the present Chamber Summons is filed without any
sufficient or lawful reason or cause and just to delay hearing of the
proceeding. Plaintiff has further stated that to file Affidavit in reply and
to defend the Contempt Notice of Motion, the applicant or his wife do
not require any other papers and proceedings and prayed for rejection
of the Chamber Summons.
3. It appears from the record that defendant No.14 has filed
Written Statement in the original suit dated 13th October, 1997. It
appears in the Order dated 28th April 2010 of the Hon'ble High Court in
this suit it is specifically stated that Ms. Gunjan Shah i/b. Mr. Arvind
Rathod for defendant No.14 appearing in the suit. It appears from
Written Statement of defendant No.14 dated 13th October 1997 which is
-- 3 of 5 --
:4: Ch. S. No.329/2018 in Suit No.7420/1980
record that such Written Statement is bearing signature of defendant
No.14. It appears that there is signature of Assistant Chief Translator
and Interpreter, High Court, Bombay on such Written Statement. It
appears there is signature of the Advocate of defendant No.14 as M/s.
Arvind Rathod & Co. also on such Written Statement. It appears
defendant No.14 has nowhere stated that the signature of such Written
Statement is not his signature. Therefore, it is clear that the Written
Statement filed by defendant No.14 is on record bears signature of
defendant No.14. There are no circumstances or fact brought on record
by applicant to come to conclusion that defendant No.14 did not file
Written Statement or he was not represented by Arvind Rathod & Co. in
the matter. It is not explained if defendant No.14 is not represented by
Arvind Rathod & Co. in the suit then why such Company has signed on
the Written Statement of defendant No.14 dated 13.10.1997 bearing
signature of defendant No.14. Therefore, the contention of defendant
that only after Contempt Notice served upon his wife, defendant No.14
came to know about the suit does not appears correct or believable.
Therefore, on such ground applicant is not entitled to get copies of the
proceeding at the cost of plaintiff. Hence, following order :
ORDER
Chamber Summons No. 329 of 2018 stands rejected.
(S.P. AGARWAL)
Judge,
Date: 03.04.2019. City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 03.04.2019
Transcribed on : 03.04.2019
Signed on : 03.04.2019
-- 4 of 5 --
:5: Ch. S. No.329/2018 in Suit No.7420/1980
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
08.04.2019 At 1:45 p.m. Mr. Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Ms. S.P. Agarwal
(C.R.NO.28)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
03.04.2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 03.04.2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 08.04.2019
-- 5 of 5 --