Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: Order below Exh.12 1 IN SUIT 567-2021
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
ORDER BELOW EXH.12
IN
SUIT NO.567 OF 2021
Bashir Babu Tambe ] ...Plaintiff.
Versus
State of Maharashtra ]…Defendants.
Appearance:
Ld. Advocate Holmagi for Plaintiff.
Ld. Advocate Jamshed Ansari for Defendant Nos. 7 and 8.
Ld. Advocate Suraj Kudalkar for Defendant/State.
CORAM : V.G.RAGHUWANSHI
JUDGE, (C.R.NO.08)
DATE : 08/09/2023.
ORAL ORDER
1. Perused application and say. Heard Ld. Counsel for both sides. Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff Shri. Holmagi submits that court should issue
directions to defendant No.7 and 8 to furnish copy of plaint in suit
No.1196/2004, copy of plaint in suit No.4140/1997 and copy of
A.O. No.816/2021 filed in Hon’ble High Court.
2. Ld. Counsel for defendant No.7 and 8 submitted that suit
No.4140/1997 was decreed on 11/12/1997. Record and
proceedings of said suit are not available with defendant No.7 and
8. Plaintiff can procure certified copies if he wish. Defendant No.7
and 8 further submitted that so far as suit No.1196/2004 is
concerned defendant No.7 and 8 were not parties to the suit. They
do not have copy of the plaint and so far as A.O. No.816/2021 is
concerned, its copy was provided to plaintiff and affidavit of service
-- 1 of 3 --
Order below Exh.9 2 IN SUIT 1211-2021
was filed in Hon’ble High Court. He submits that this application is
filed to delay hearing and prays for rejecting this application.
3. At present the court is hearing application for under Order 7 Rule
11. If any party desires relief in its favour and party should provide
all necessary documents. Therefore, it was responsibility of plaintiff
to file his documents if plaintiff thought that they were necessary for
judicious determination of this application. Defendant No.7 and 8
submitted that they do not have copies of plaint in suit
No.4140/1997 and suit No.816/2004. Therefore, defendant No.7
and 8 cannot be compelled to do impossible i.e. to provide copy of
document which they do not have. So far as copy of A.O.
No.816/2021 is concerned it is contention of defendant No.7 and 8
that plaintiff was served with copy of A.O. No.816/2021. Whereas
plaintiff says that he was not served copy of A.O. No.816/2021.
Plaintiff can get certified copy of A.O. No.816/2021 of Hon’ble High
Court. Therefore, this application is without any substance and
hence, it is rejected.
Date : 08/09/2023 (Shri. V.G. RAGHUWANSHI)
Judge
City Civil Court,
Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on :08/09/2023.
Transcribed on :08/09/2023.
Signed on : 18/09/2023.
-- 2 of 3 --
Order below Exh.9 3 IN SUIT 1211-2021
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
26/09/2023 Mrs. S.A. Shekade.
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
SHRI V.G. Raghuwanshi (Court Room
No.08)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
08/09/2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
18/09/2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 26/09/2023
-- 3 of 3 --