Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1109 OF 2020
(CNR NO.MHCC01-003122-2020)
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 6453 OF 2006
(HIGH COURT SUIT NO.1566 OF 2006)
The Federal Bank Ltd. ].. Plaintiff.
V/s.
1. Smt. V.K. Radhamani ]
Amma and other. ]..Defendant.
Advocate Mr. Sawant for the plaintiff.
Advocate Mr. Mohite for the defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI VIDYADHAR B. KAKATKAR
(C.R.No.15).
DATE : 12th NOVEMBER 2021
ORDER
The Notice of Motion is filed for setting aside the ‘No Cross’
order passed by this Court against the plaintiff on 17/01/2020.
2. It is the case of plaintiff that, the advocate on record had
informed that he was suffering from cold, fever and chills since
16/01/2020. Hence, the associate of advocate on record applied for
adjournment on the health issue. That application was rejected by the
court and ‘No Cross’ order was passed against the plaintiff regarding
DW-1.
-- 1 of 4 --
2
3. Plaintiff has stated that he has produced the medical
certificate. The absence of learned advocate for plaintiff was not
intentional or deliberate. He has further stated that plaintiff should not
be allowed to suffer due to non-availability of the advocate. It is further
stated that no prejudice will be caused to the defendant if plaintiff is
allowed to cross examine. Hence plaintiff has prayed for allowing the
notice of motion.
4. Learned advocate for defendant No. 1 has objected the
notice of motion and has prayed for dismissal of the same.
5. I have gone through the record and proceeding. I heard
learned advocate for both the parties at length. I have gone through the
medical certificate dated 17/01/2020 which says that the advocate for
plaintiff was under medical treatment from 16/01/2022 to 17/01/2020
due to cold, fever with chills. Therefore, the case of learned advocate
for plaintiff it substantiated by the medical certificate. It is also
important to note that plaintiff had tendered an application for
adjournment due to absence of his advocate on health grounds. That
application was rejected by my learned predecessor. The conduct of
plaintiff shows that he was diligent to attend the matter.
6. In view of all the above circumstances, I have come to the
conclusion that plaintiff has made out sufficient case for setting aside
the ‘No Cross’ order. Hence, Notice of Motion is allowed. Plaintiff is
permitted to cross examine the DW-1. The suit was instituted in the
year 2006 and hence it is 15 years old. Therefore, both the parties are
directed to expedite the hearing of the suit. With this, I proceed to pass
the following order.
-- 2 of 4 --
3
O R D E R
1. Notice of Motion No.1109 of 2020 is allowed.
2. The plaintiff is permitted to cross-examine the
DW-1.
3. Both the parties are directed to expedite the
hearing of the suit.
4. Notice of Motion No.1109 of 2020 is disposed of
accordingly.
(VIDYADHAR B. KAKATKAR)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 12.11.2021 Gr.Mumbai.
Dictated on : 12.11.2021
Typed on : 15.11.2021
Signed on : 17.11.2021
-- 3 of 4 --
4
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
18.11.2021 AT 3.10 P.M. MRS. SUPRIYA S. PAWAR
Name of the Judge (with Court Room
no.)
HHJ SHRI VIDYADHAR B.
KAKATKAR (C.R. No.15)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
12.11.2021
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 17.11.2021
Judgment/Order uploaded on 18.11.2021
-- 4 of 4 --