Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1096 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.708 OF 2014
M/s. Hemal Ink
Through its Representative,
Mr. Jatin Kataria
Age 37 Years, Occ. : ,
R/at : 301, Premganga C.H.S. Ltd.,
Kasturba Road, Mulund (West),
Mumbai 400 080. ...Plaintiff
V/s.
M/s. Gavakari Prakashan
Through its Partner,
Mr. Vandanrao Potnis
Age Years, Occ. : ,
R/at : 430H, Tilak Path,
Nashik 422 001. ...Defendant
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Mr. Deepak Salunkhe for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Ashish Awasthi for defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI MILIND V. KURTADIKAR
(C.R. No.20)
DATED : 19th June, 2019
ORDER
Plaintiff has taken out this NM for taking out the suit from
dismissal caption.
2. It is argued on behalf of plaintiff that on 24.09.2018 matter
was fixed for evidence. On that day his evidence affidavit was ready but
the Court was on leave. So the matter was adjourned to 21.01.2019. As
plaintiff and his Ld. counsel have lost the track record of the case and
MHCC010028292019
-- 1 of 3 --
NM 1096/2019 .. 2 .. Suit No.708/2014
therefore on 21.01.2019 they could not remain present in the Court for
filing evidence affidavit. On that day plaintiff was not aware of the date.
Therefore he could not remain present for leading evidence. His
absence is not deliberate one.
3. The defendant has resisted his application on the ground
that plaintiff has availed sufficient opportunities to lead the evidence.
Even then he has failed to lead the evidence. Therefore there was no
option for the Court to keep the matter for dismissal. As such it may not
be taken out from dismissal caption and it has to be dismissed.
4. It is a matter of record that since 24.09.2018 the matter
was fixed for leading evidence by plaintiff. It was then adjourned to
21.01.2019. On that day also plaintiff was absent. Now as per plaintiff
he and his Ld. counsel has lost the track of matter and could not remain
present before the Court for leading evidence. This seems to be proper
reason for plaintiff from not attending the Court. As now he is ready to
lead evidence, there is no reason to deny him said opportunity. As far as
possible fair opportunity has to be given to the parties to put their case.
Court should not be technical to deprive the parties from substantial
justice. At the most some cost can be imposed because of delay.
Accordingly, the order.
ORDER
1. NM No.1096/19 is hereby allowed.
2. SU No.708/14 is hereby taken out from dismissal caption on
payment of cost of Rs.1,000/ to be paid to the defendant within
four weeks or to deposit it in the Court during said period.
-- 2 of 3 --
NM 1096/2019 .. 3 .. Suit No.708/2014
3. On payment of cost plaintiff is at liberty to lead his evidence.
( MILIND V. KURTADIKAR )
Judge, (C.R. No.20)
Dt.: 19/06/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 19.06.2019
Transcribed on : 19.06.2019
Signed on : __.06.2019
lhd/
-- 3 of 3 --