Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
Transfer Application No.72 of 2019
Commissioner of Income Tax ..Applicant.
In the matter between
Salome Roy Kapoor ... Plaintiff.
V/s.
Tax Recovery Officer & Ors. ..Defendants
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
SHRI V.G. BISHT
Dated : 11th April,2019
(C.R.No.19)
Advocate Ms. Pragya Chandra i/b Adv. Charanjeet Chandarpal for
applicant.
Advocate Mr.A.B. Purohit for respondent.
O R A L O R D E R
Read application. Read say (Exh.2)of respondent.
2. From the contents of application it is seen that the respondent
herein has filed Civil Suit No.8607/1992 for declaration and perpetual
injunction against the present applicant. According to applicant, his
Counsel had argued in depth and submitted that the suit is not
maintainable under Rule 9 of CPC. Even the roznamas of the proceeding
show that the matter having argued in depth by his Advocate before the
-- 1 of 5 --
2
predecessor Judge, it was kept for order and judgment. However, the
Learned Advocate on behalf of respondent purposely sought various
adjournments and caused delay in passing orders. Subsequently, a new
Judge arrived in C.R.No.12 where as the earlier Judge came to transferred
to C.R.No.27.
3. The applicant lastly contends that it would be favourable and
of utmost necessity if the suit is tried and heard before the same judge.
Hence this application.
4. The respondent/plaintiff, on the other hand, opposed the
application by denying all the contentions raised therein and contended
that present application is frivolous, bogus, untenable, unwarranted and
filed as a malafide afterthought to eventually stall, frustrate and delay of
hearing of suit and passing of decree.
5. According to respondent the hearing of the suit was never
completed before either of the Court and till date the matter continues to
be part heard for arguments and the same can be seen from the copies of
roznamas filed on record.
6. In the premises aforesaid the application deserve to be
dismissed with cost, submitted respondent.
-- 2 of 5 --
3
7. Ms. Pragya Chandra, Learned Counsel for applicant submitted
that additional issue on the point of maintainability of suit is framed by
earlier Judge who was then presiding C.R.N.12 where the matter was
pending and now a new Judge has succeed the earlier Judge. Moreover,
the long adjournments are taken by other side and in such circumstances
and the fact that the matter was heard by earlier Judge, it is necessary that
the case should be transferred to C.R.No.27.
8. As against above, Mr. A.B. Purohit, Learned Counsel for
respondent, invited my attention to the reply filed by respondent.
According to him the mater was never heard fully by the earlier Judge and
in order to substantiate his submission Learned Counsel also invited my
attention to the notarized copies of roznamas filed on record. As there is no
merit in the application, the same is liable to be dismissed, argued Learned
Counsel.
9. I have carefully gone through the roznamas of the proceedings
filed on record. It is evident from the roznamas that the presiding Judge of
C.R.No.12 had heard the matter partly. The roznamas nowhere show that
after hearing both the parties finally, the matter was adjourned for orders.
Therefore, it is not proper on the part of Learned Counsel for applicant to
submit that the matter at some point of time was posted for orders but for
change of assignment it came to be reopened.
10. So far as the question of taking long adjournments are
concerned, the roznamas also do not come to the rescue of the applicant
-- 3 of 5 --
4
and on the contrary, it show that it are defendants who are getting the
mater adjourned for one or the other grounds.
11. In view of above obtaining situation, this Court is not satisfied
with the grounds raised in the application so as to enable and facilitate the
transfer of proceedings from one Court to another Court. The application
lacks merits and hence does not deserve consideration.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following order :
O R D E R
Transfer Application No.72/2019 is rejected.
11/04/2019 (V. G. BISHT)
Principal Judge,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 11/04/2019
Transcribed on : 11/04/2019
Signed by HHJ on : 11/04/2019
-- 4 of 5 --
5
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographer: Mrs.Aruna S. Jayade
Upload date and time: 23/04/2019 (at 2.30 p.m.)
Name of the Judge H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Shri V.G. BISHT(C.R.No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 11th April,2019
Order signed by P.O. on 11th April, 2019
Order uploaded on 23rd April,2019
-- 5 of 5 --