Interim Order 2

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: Application in N/M. No.998/19 (SC No.8489/93)
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER MUMBAI
ORDER ON APPLICATION
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.998 OF 2019
IN
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.8489 OF 1993
Fulwantibai Chhaganraj Rathod & Ors. ... Plaintiffs
- Versus -
M. K. Enterprises & Ors. … Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. PRASHANT C. KALE
CITY CIVIL COURT, GR. BOMBAY
(C. R. NO.65)
DATE : 01st August, 2024.
Appearance :-
Mr. D. A. Thorat, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mr. Shyamrao Gore, Advocate for defendant No.4.
O R D E R
In continuation of the order passed in notice of motion
No. 998/2019 in suit No.8489/1993, plaintiff No. 5 filed this
application on 30.10.2021 submitting that relying upon the
valuation report he has valued the suit and he is ready to pay
additional court fees on the said valuation of Rs.3,56,411/-.
Page 1 of 3
-- 1 of 4 --
Application in N/M. No.998/19 (SC No.8489/93)
2. Defendant No.4 has filed reply to this application on
15.07.2024. It is submitted by defendant No.4 that the order dated
04.10.2021 is not followed by the plaintiff. There are grave errors
in valuation report. Valuation report states that the purpose for
valuation is to find construction cost of the property for the year
1994. Whereas the suit property was to be valued as per order by
this court and plaintiff has cleverly misguided the Valuer to
submitted report that is favourable to their case. It defeats the
purpose of the order of this Court and does not follow the same in
its true letter and spirit and on these grounds valuation report is
liable to be rejected.
3. Heard both the parties. Valuation report is prepared by
the expert. There is no counter documents on record. The Valuer is
reported to the Government Registered valuer and the present
matter is High Court time bound matter. The valuation report was
tendered by the plaintiff in October, 2021 and defendant No.4 has
taken objection on that in July, 2024. The Ld. Advocate for the
defendant No.4 has submitting that he has challenged the order
passed in Notice of Motion No. 3272/2021 and 2153/2017. The
order passed in both notice of motion are independent and has no
bearing on the question raised in present Notice of Motion No.
998/2019. Hence, I pass following order :-
Page 2 of 3
-- 2 of 4 --
Application in N/M. No.998/19 (SC No.8489/93)
O R D E R
1. As per valuation report of the expert filed by plaintiff,
amended suit claim be valued subject to verification by the
office.
2. After the verification of the suit valuation by the office,
plaintiff to pay court fees as per rules forthwith as matter is
High Court Time Bound.
3. Application is disposed of.
Date : 01/08/2024. (Prashant C. Kale )
Ad-hoc Judge
City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay.
Page 3 of 3
-- 3 of 4 --
Application in N/M. No.998/19 (SC No.8489/93)
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
02.08.2024 at 1.30 pm ( Samruddhi Jadhav)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room No.)
HHJ Shri. Prashant C. Kale (C.R.No.65)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
01/08/2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O.on
02/08/2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 02/08/2024
Page 4 of 3
-- 4 of 4 --