Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 700/18 SUIT 8091/98 1
CNR.NO.MHCC01-002549-2018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.700 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO.8091 OF 1998
The State Bank of India .. .. Plaintiff
Versus
The Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd. .. .. Defendant
Advocate Bhupesh Samant for Defendant
Advocate for Plaintiff absent.
Coram : Her Honour Judge
Smt. Pushpa N. Rao
Ad hoc Asstt. Judge
CR no. : 32
Dated : 19th April 2018
ORDER
1. Defendant taken out this notice of motion for setting aside the
order of evidence closed dated 16/01/2016 and permitting him to cross
examine the plaintiff witness.
2. Copy of affidavit of plaintiff was served on the defendant on
04/04/2015. Defendant and its advocate remained under wrong
impression that right of their cross examination of plaintiff witness was
opened, thereafter defendant had taken out chamber summons
No.870/2017 for rejection of plaint that was rejected by order dated
06/01/2018. As no cross order was not passed against the defendant,
however, evidence of plaintiff was closed, hence, defendant has taken
-- 1 of 3 --
NM 700/18 SUIT 8091/98 2
out this motion for setting aside 'no cross' order prays that motion be
made absolute in terms of prayer clause.
3. Plaintiff filed the reply. Since 16/01/2016 defendant never
bothered to go through the proceeding and with the intention of delay
taken out this motion, hence, motion be dismissed with heavy costs.
4. Heard learned advocate Shri.Bhupesh Samant for Defendant.
Advocate for plaintiff absent.
5. I have perused the record and proceeding. Plaintiff has filed the
affidavit of evidence of Shri.Kishan Bhale dated 20/02/2014 vide Exh.6.
On 13/10/2014 no cross examination order has been passed as suit is
undefended. As per the roznama advocate Shri.Prashant Naik filed his
vakalatnama on behalf of the defendant but thereafter, neither
appeared nor filed vakalatnama, therefore, matter was fixed for ‘no
w/s’ hearing. Defendant being the bank well aware about the procedure
of law. Writ of summons was duly served on the defendant appeared
through advocate before the court but chosen not to file the written
statement on record. As on 13/10/2014 neither defendant nor his
advocate appeared before the court therefore, ‘no cross examination’
order has been passed against the defendant. Defendant had taken out
this motion on 12/02/2018. The reasons assigned by the defendant
bank is nothing but shown the sheer negligence on their part in not
proceeding with the suit. However, considering the nature of the suit, I
am of the view that, if the defendant bank is allowed to cross examine
the plaintiff witness by setting aside the order dated 13/10/2014 by
imposing cost of Rs. 5000/ be deposited in the legal aid office then that
will be justifiable.
-- 2 of 3 --
NM 700/18 SUIT 8091/98 3
6. In view of above discussion, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
The Notice of Motion No.700/2018 is made absolute in terms
of prayer clause, by depositing cost of Rs. 5000/ in the legal
aid office on or before the next date.
Date : 19/04/2018
(Pushpa N. Rao)
Ad hoc Asstt.Judge
Bombay City Civil Court
Greater Mumbai
Dictation Direct typed on computer: 19/04/2018
Signed by HHJ on : 19/04/2018
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIG
JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
21/04/2018 at ( 12.05p.m.) Mrs. J.V.Pawar
Name of the Judge (With Court room No.) HHJ Smt. Pushpa N. Rao
(Court Room no.32)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/ORDER 19/04/2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.on 19/04/2018
JUDGMENT/ ORDER uploaded on 21/04/2018
-
-- 3 of 3 --