Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 927/18 SUIT 4060/2009 1
CNR NO.MHCC010031802018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.927 of 2018
IN
SUIT NO.4060 of 2009
Arjun Anand Nikam .. .. Plaintiff
Versus
Meena Arjun Nikam
@ Smt.Janhavi Vijay Sharma ...Defendant
Shri. Rashmi Parab advocate for the Plaintiff.
Smt.Kanchan Pandhare advocate for Defendant.
Coram : Her Honour Judge
Smt. Pushpa N. Rao
Ad hoc Judge
CR No. : 32
Dated :19th November 2018
ORDER
1. Defendant taken out this motion for framing of additional issues
as suggested in the motion itself and also for recasted of issues dated
18/01/2011.
2. Perused the draft of issues as suggested by defendant in the
motion.
3. Plaintiff filed reply. Defendant wants to frame additional issues
which is not pleaded in the written statement therefore, the motion
-- 1 of 4 --
NM 927/18 SUIT 4060/2009 2
taken out by the plaintiff is not maintainable. It is also denied by the
plaintiff that issues are required to be recasted. Plaintiff not disputed
that court can frame the issues at any stage of the suit hence, prays that
motion be dismissed with heavy costs.
4. Heard Ld.advocate Shri. Rashmi Parab for the Plaintiff and
Smt.Kanchan Pandhare advocate for Defendant.
5. I have perused the plaint, written statement of the defendant and
issues dated 18/01/2011 on record.
6. After considering the pleading of both the parties following issues
are necessary for the decision of the matter.
a) Does plaintiff prove that he had purchased plot in the name of
defendant from his own income?
b) Does plaintiff prove that in January 2005 defendant forcibly
dispossess him from the suit premises and taken the possession of suit
premises from him?
c) Does defendant prove that the suit plot is purchased and
construction is carried out thereon by the plaintiff from the saving and
earnings of the defendant?
d) Is the suit barred by principles of resjudicata?
e). Does defendant prove that defendant was never in possession of
suit premises up to December 2004 or at any time?
f). Is the suit barred by limitation?
g) Does plaintiff prove that he is entitled for possession of suit
premises from the defendant?
h) Does plaintiff entitled for declaration of his ownership of the suit
premises?
-- 2 of 4 --
NM 927/18 SUIT 4060/2009 3
7. In view of above framing of additional issues I pass the following
order.
ORDER
Notice of Motion No.927/2018 is disposed of
in view of framing of additional issues.
Date : 19/11/2018 (Pushpa N. Rao)
Ad hoc Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court
Greater Mumbai
Direct typed on computer:19/11/2018
Signed by HHJ on : 19/11/2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
24/12/2018 at (1.40 p.m.) Mrs. J.V.Pawar
Name of the Judge (With Court room
No.)
HHJ Smt.Pushpa N Rao
C.R.No.32
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
19/11/2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O.on
19/11/2018
JUDGMENT/ ORDER uploaded on 24/12/2018
.
-- 3 of 4 --
NM 927/18 SUIT 4060/2009 4
-- 4 of 4 --