Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/m No. 633/18 in Stamp No. 11872/17. 1 Order.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 633 OF 2018
(CNR NO. MHCC010024382018)
IN
STAMP NO. 11872 OF 2017
Xavier Thomas ...Applicant
(Original Plaintiff)
Versus
Board of Directors of State Bank of India ...Respondents
and Others (Original Defendants)
CORAM : SHRI G.G.BHANSALI.
(C.R.NO.31).
DATE : 5th NOVEMBER, 2019.
Ms. Rohini M. Amin, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mr. Sunil Karot, Advocate for Defendant Nos.4 to 6.
ORDER
This is a motion preferred by plaintiff / petitioner Xavier
Thomas. Plaintiff and his advocate are absent when repeatedly called.
2. Perused reply filed by defendant no.4 to 6.
3. Heard ld. Advocate Sunil Karot for defendants 4 to 6. He
submits that there is no jurisdiction to this Court. The suit is not
tenable in present form.
-- 1 of 4 --
N/m No. 633/18 in Stamp No. 11872/17. 2 Order.
REASONS
4. Despite specific intimation in roznama dated 11/07/2019
and 26/09/2019, plaintiff and his counsel are absent. Suit is running in
49 pages and prayer clause is running in 10 pages from Page No.38 to
49. There are 52 prayers claimed by plaintiff. On perusal of pleading,
it is difficult to understand for what purpose plaintiff has preferred this
suit. It is skillfully drafted, however at Page No.48 in prayer clause
(mm) it is mentioned that order issued by D.C. Karwar of Karnataka
under Clause 13(2) and 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 be stayed.
5. Plaintiff has intentionally avoided to file the copy of said
order. However, ld. Advocate for defendant bank has submitted order
issued by Deputy Commissioner (Mr. S.S.Nakul), IAS of Karwar dated
18/06/2018, whereby, the properties of plaintiff came to be attached
under SARFAESI Act.
6. The jurisdiction of civil court is specifically barred by the
SARFAESI Act, 2002. Plaintiff has made a party to Union of India,
Secretary of Central Government, Attorney General of India, various
judicial officers and ld. CJM of Kumta in Karnataka. There is no
reference that why judicial officers are made party in a civil proceeding.
There is no action of judicial officer in their personal capacity to
challenge before the Court. If there is any order of judicial side, it is to
be challenged before the appellate forum.
7. There is no notice under Section 80 of CPC to prefer civil
suit against government. Plaintiff is son of Mr. P.I.Thomas. They are
respondents in petition at Karwar. In view of order dated 18/06/2018
the Deputy Commissioner of Karwar has attached properties of M/s. Tip
-- 2 of 4 --
N/m No. 633/18 in Stamp No. 11872/17. 3 Order.
Top Tiles. If plaintiff is getting litigating through his father, then this is
not a proper forum. If not, then plaintiff do not have locus standi to
prefer the suit.
8. In short, plaintiff has abused the process of law. In last two
years he failed to comply office objections. Hence the order :
ORDER
1. Suit before registration alongwith Notice of Motion No.
633/2018 stands dismissed.
2. N/m No. 633/18 is disposed off accordingly.
3. Suit be registered for statistical and record room purpose.
(G.G.BHANSALI)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 05/11/2019. Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 05/11/2019.
2. Transcribed on : 07/11/2019.
3. Signed on : 08/11/2019.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
-- 3 of 4 --
N/m No. 633/18 in Stamp No. 11872/17. 4 Order.
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
08/11/2019. 5.47 p.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 05/11/2019.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 08/11/2019.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 08/11/2019.
-- 4 of 4 --