Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010032732020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1186 OF 2020
(CNR NO.MHCC01-003273-2020)
IN
L.C. SUIT NO.1671 OF 2012
Shri. Ravindra Anant Bhidwadkar
Partner of M/s. Firoz Trading Company
Godown No.2, Ganpati Baug,
T.J. Road, Sewree (W), Mumbai 400 015. ….Plaintiff.
V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Having their office at Mahapalika Bhavan
Mahapalika Marg, Opp. C.S.T. Station,
Mumbai- 400 001. ...Defendant.
Appearance :
Adv. Sameer Kolge for plaintiff.
Adv. Anand Khairnar for defendant/BMC.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. R.V. BHAKTA
(C.R.NO.06)
DATE : 10thJune, 2025.
ORAL ORDER
1. This Notice of Motion is taken by the plaintiff for restoration of
the Notice of Motion No.1872/2012 which is dismissed on 07.11.2019
for want of prosecution.
-- 1 of 4 --
2
2. The plaintiff submitted that, he has filed the present suit against
the defendant / Corporation for declaration and injunction in which he
had also filed Notice of Motion No.1872 of 2012. In the said Notice of
Motion, ad-interim order is also passed in his favour on 27.06.2012
which is in existence till date. He added that when the Notice of Motion
was pending for hearing he has time and again requested his lawyer to
take effective steps for the Notice of Motion hearing. However, his
lawyer told him that, now she is mostly practicing in Dindoshi Court.
Meanwhile, the Notice of Motion is dismissed for want of prosecution
on 07.11.2019.
3. It is his contention that, there is no negligent or malafide act on
his part rather he has time and again requested his lawyer to conduct
the hearing of the Notice of Motion. However, for the above said reason
his lawyer had not pursued the Notice of Motion. On these grounds
prayed to set aside the order dated 07.11.2019 and restore the Notice of
Motion.
4. The defendant / Corporation has contested present Notice of
Motion by filing its say in which Corporation has denied most of the
averments of the Notice of Motion which are giving against its interest.
It is the contention of the Corporation that, the plaintiff has not
explained the grounds properly. Therefore, the grounds put-fourth by
the plaintiff themselves sufficient to show his negligent act. On these
grounds prayed to dismissed the Notice of Motion.
5. I have gone through the Notice of Motion, say and heard both
sides. It is admitted on the fact record that, ad-interim order passed in
-- 2 of 4 --
3
favour of the plaintiff dated 27.06.2012 is in existence till date. The
contents of the Notice of Motion clearly shows that, the plaintiff has
taken bonafide steps to conduct hearing of Notice of Motion. Therefore,
there is no malafide or negligent act on the part of the plaintiff. As
stated supra the ad-interim injunction passed in favour of the plaintiff is
in existence till today, therefore if the Notice of Motion is not restored,
then, the plaintiff will suffer get hardship than the defendant. Hence,
following order :
ORDER
1. The Notice of Motion No.1186 of 2020 is allowed and disposed
off.
2. The order dated 07.11.2019 is set aside. Accordingly, Notice of
Motion No.1872/2012 is restored at its own place.
3. Cost in main cause.
(R.V. BHAKTA)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 10.06.2025 Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 10.06.2025
Transcribed on : 11.06.2025
Signed on :
-- 3 of 4 --
4
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
11/06/2025 at 12.55 p.m. N.S. Bakre
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court Room
Number)
HHJ SHRI. R.V. BHAKTA
(C.R.NO.06)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/
Order
10.06.2025
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 11.06.2025
Judgment/Order uploaded on 11.06.2025
-- 4 of 4 --