Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1 Judgment SU958/2020
MHCC010028772020
Presented on : 21-02-2020
Registered on : 02-03-2020
Decided on : 01-11-2022
Duration : 2 Ys. 8 Ms. 11 Ds.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
S.C. SUIT NO.958 OF 2020
(C.N.R. No.MHCC010028772020 )
Shankar Radhakisan Devade, }
Age: 61 years Occupation : Retired, }
R/o. at Room No.209, Building No.D4, }
2nd floor, Vibhag1, PMGP Colony, Dharavi, }
Mumbai 400 017 } … Plaintiff.
VERSUS
Administrative Officer, Lok Manya Tilak }
General Hospital, Sion, Mumbai – 400 022 }... Defendant.
Appearance:
Mr. Khalil Shaikh, learned Advocate for the plaintiff
Exparte against the defendant.
CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE,
Adhoc Judge
Date : 3rd November, 2022
-- 1 of 6 --
2 Judgment SU958/2020
J U D G M E N T
( Delivered on 03.11.2022 )
This is a suit for declaration about correct name of the
plaintiff.
In brief, the plaintiff’s case is as under :
2. The plaintiff’s correct name is Mr. Shankar Radhakisan
Devade. He was serving with the defendant from 15.08.1988 in
Lokmanya Tilak General Hospital of Bombay Municipal Corporation as
Chef. His name was wrongly entered in the service record as ‘Shankar
Rathakisan Dehade’ instead of ‘Shankar Radhakisan Devade’. At the
time of computerization of the record, the plaintiff instructed to the
concerned department of his office to correct his name. The office
suggested him to submit the copy of Government Gazette in respect of
correction in the name. Accordingly, the plaintiff declared his correct
name as Shankar Radhakisan Devade in the official Gazette published
in the year 2016. The plaintiff has retired. His son Mr. Santosh Shankar
Devade has applied for service on compassionate ground with
defendant. During the scrutiny of said application objection regarding
the difference in the name has been raised. Therefore, on 05.03.2019,
the defendant’s office directed the plaintiff to obtain the order of the
court in respect of his correct name. Accordingly the plaintiff has filed
this suit seeking declaration about his correct name.
3. By order dated 16.02.2022, the suit is proceeded exparte against
the defendant.
-- 2 of 6 --
3 Judgment SU958/2020
4. Heard the Ld. advocate for the plaintiff. No argument of the
defendant. Points for determination alongwith my findings thereon
with reasons are as follows :
POINTS FINDINGS
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that his correct
name is ‘Shankar Radhakisan Devade’? Yes
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
declaration as to his correct name? Yes
(3) What order and decree ? Suit is decreed.
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT Nos.1 and 2 :
5. Both these points are interlinked with each other and to
avoid repetition of findings, they are taken together for consideration.
The plaintiff has adduced his own evidence as Mr.Shankar (PW1) at
Exh.06. He relied upon following documentary evidence :
a) Ration Card at Exh.08.
b) Copy of Gazette dated 26th May to 1st June, 2016 at Exh.09.
c) Election Card, Aadhar Card, Bank Passbook at Exh. 10 Colly.
d) Copy of Death Certificate of plaintiff’s mother at Exh.11.
e) Election Card, Aadhar Card, PAN Cards of plaintiff's son at
Exh. 12 Colly.
6. Plaintiff Shankar (PW1) deposes in support of his claim. He
deposes that his correct name is Shankar Radhakisan Devade and his
name is wrongly entered to the service record as Shankar Rathakisan
-- 3 of 6 --
4 Judgment SU958/2020
Dehade. In the copy of Ration Card (Exh.08), the plaintiff’s name is
recorded as Shankar Devade. In Election Icard issued by Election
Commission of India, his name is recorded as Shankar Radhakishan
Devade. In Aadhar card issued by Govt. of India, his name is recorded
as Shankar Radhakisan Devade. In the Bank Passbook of Municipal Co
operative Bank Ltd., his name is recorded as Shankar Rathakisan. In
the certificate issued by Grampanchayat Dhakalgaon, Tal. Ambal, Dist.
Jalna, it is recorded that plaintiff’s mother Shahubai Radhakisan Devade
has expired on 02.05.2004. In the Election Icard, Aadhar Card and
PAN Card of plaintiff’s wife, the name of plaintiff’s wife is recorded as
Babita Shankar Devade. In the Election Icard, Aadhar Card and PAN
Card of plaintiff’s son, the name of plaintiff’s son is recorded as Santosh
Shankar Devade. In the Aadhar Card of plaintiff’s another son Sushil,
his name is recorded as Sushil Shankar Devade. From all these
documents, it is clear that the plaintiff’s correct name is Shankar
Radhakisan Devade and not as Shankar Rathakisan Dehade. The
plaintiff by way of declaration published in official Gazette (Exh.19) has
declared his correct name as ‘Shankar Radhakisan Devade’. Hence,
considering the oral evidence of plaintiff supported by the documents, I
am of the view that the plaintiff’s correct name is Shankar Radhakisan
Devade. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration as to his
correct name. In the result I answer point Nos.1 and 2 accordingly.
As to Point No.3:
7. In view of the aforesaid findings, the suit is liable to be
decreed. Parties shall bear their own costs. In the result in answer to
point No.3, I pass following order:
-- 4 of 6 --
5 Judgment SU958/2020
ORDER
1. The suit is decreed.
2. It is declared that the plaintiff’s correct name is ‘Shankar
Radhakisan Devade’. Same be considered for record
purposes of defendant.
3. Parties to bear their own costs.
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
Date : 03/11/2022 (R.A. Sasne)
Dictated on : 03/11/2022. Judge, C.R.No.62,
Checked on : 03/11/2022. City Civil Court,
Signed on : 03/11/2022. Mumbai.
-- 5 of 6 --
6 Judgment SU958/2020
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
03.11.2022 at 17.20 p.m. Ms. M. D. Hirole
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge(with CR No.) HHJ SHRI. R.A. SASNE (C.R.No.62)
Date of pronouncement of Order 01.11.2022
Order signed by P.O. on 03.11.2022
Order uploaded on 03.11.2022
-- 6 of 6 --