Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1011 OF 2019
IN
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.3408 OF 2008
Master Gold Pvt. Ltd. … Plaintiffs
V/s.
Ruby Jewels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. … Defendants
Appearances:
Ld. Adv Poonam Sharma for plaintiff.
None for defendant no.1
Ld. Adv. Neelam Gupta for defendant no.2.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI MILIND V. KURTADIKAR
(C.R.No.20)
DATED : 10th JULY, 2019
ORDER
Plaintiff has taken out this notice of motion for taking out
the suit from dismissal caption.
2. It is argued that plaintiff has filed evidence affidavit and
relevant documents on record. However on 16.01.2019 witness could
not remain present because of his personal difficulty. Therefore the
Court has kept the matter for dismissal. Plaintiff has attended the Court
alongwith advocate on each and every day. Suit is filed for recovery of
an amount of near about Rs.35,00,000/. So valuable rights and
interest are involved in the suit. Therefore plaintiff be permitted to lead
evidence by taking out the suit from dismissal caption.
3. The defendants have resisted this application on the ground
that plaintiff intentionally delayed the matter for one or other reason.
On some dates plaintiff remained absent and therefore matter is kept
MHCC01-002684-2019
-- 1 of 3 --
NM 1011/2019 .. 2 .. Suit No.3408/2008
for dismissal. Despite sufficient opportunities plaintiff could not lead
evidence. As such there is no reason to give him more opportunity.
4. It is the matter of record that since 30.07.2018 the matter
is fixed for hearing. As per plaintiff on that day he could not remain
present because of his personal difficulties. In absence of contrary
submission I have no reason to disbelieve the contention of plaintiff that
he remained absent because of his personal difficulties. It is money suit
of near about Rs.35,00,000/. Therefore, proper opportunity needs to
be given to the plaintiff. When party is ready to proceed with the
evidence then there should not be any reason for the Court to deny such
opportunity. The delay can be compensated in terms of money. So in
order to give fair chance I am of the opinion that plaintiff can be
permitted to proceed with the evidence. At the most certain cost can be
imposed. Accordingly, the order.
O R D E R
1. NM No.1011/19 in SU 3408/08 is hereby allowed.
2. The suit is taken out from dismissal caption on
plaintiff paying cost of Rs.2000/ to the defendant
within four weeks or to deposit said amount in the
Court.
3. On compliance suit be taken out from dismissal
caption and be listed to its original stage.
(Milind V. Kurtadikar)
Judge, (C.R.No.20)
Dt.: 10/07/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
Dictated on : 10.07.2019
Transcribed on : 12.07.2019
Signed on : 15.07.2019
-- 2 of 3 --
NM 1011/2019 .. 3 .. Suit No.3408/2008
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
16.07.2019 01.10 p.m. Sanjay B. Kaskar
(StopGap Stenographer)
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri M.V. Kurtadikar
(CR No.20)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgement/Order.
10.07.2019.
Judgement/order signed by P.O on 15.07.2019.
Judgement/order uploaded on 16.07.2019.
-- 3 of 3 --