Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 Ch.S. 655-2019 in Suit no. 2704-2014
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS No. 655 OF 2019
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 2704 OF 2014
Muzaffar Husain Mohd. Kazi & Ors. ].....Plaintiffs
Versus
M/s. M.K. Enterprises & Ors. ].....Defendants
Coram : Shri Sanjay N. Yadav, Judge
(Court Room no. 05)
Date : 19th November, 2019.
Appearance:
Ld. Adv. Mr. M.S. Kade for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mrs. Meena Dhuri for defendant/MCGM
Adv. Mr. Madkaikar for defendant No. 1.
Adv. Mr. Amey Deshpande for defendant No. 2.
ORDER
1. Heard Learned Advocate for defendant No. 1, Advocate for
plaintiff, Advocate for the defendant No. 2 and Learned Advocate for
defendant corporation.
2. The defendant No. 1 by this Chamber Summons seeks to strike
out paragraphs No. 3 to 8, 10 to 12 and 14 to 16. It is contended that
prayer clause (a), (b) and (c) are given up by the plaintiff. The suit is
only restricted to prayer clause (d) of the plaint.
CNR NO.MHCC0100330519
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Ch.S. 655-2019 in Suit no. 2704-2014
3. The defendant had filed written statement only dealing with the
pleadings pertaining to issue in terms of prayer clause (d) of the plaint.
It is submitted that the issues are framed on 10.04.2018 which are
restricted in terms of prayer clause (d) of the plaint. It is contended
that the irrelevant evidence in paragraph no. 3 to 8, 10 to 12, 14 to 16
filed by the plaintiff need to be struck off.
It is contended that the chamber summons is devoid of
merits, deserves to be dismissed.
4. The reply is filed by the plaintiff. It is contended that
examinationinchief is in relation to the facts relevant to decide the
prayer clause 'd' in the plaint.
5. The issue involved in the present suit is in relation to the
compensation. Vide order dated 05.01.2016 this Cort has observed that
the directions in prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) stands complied. The
suit is restricted for prayer clause (d). The suit was disposed off for
prayer clause (a) to (c).
The evidence of the plaintiff is expected to be in line with the
order passed on 22.02.2016. The plaintiff is expected to lead evidence
in respect of issue framed in the suit. The evidence sought to be strike
out is in relations to the prayer clause (a), (b) and (c).
The defendant had rightly relied upon the judgment in case of
Jitendra Singh Rajendra Singh Kushwah & Ors. [2013(6)Mh.L.J. It
had observed as follows:
''The Court cannot permit the party to lead an irrelevant evidence or
evidence not related to the issue even in affidavit filed by way of
examinationinchief in lieu of oral evidence.''
The evidence of the plaintiff in paragraphs No. 3 to 8, 10 to 12,
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Ch.S. 655-2019 in Suit no. 2704-2014
14 to 16 is not relevant for decision in the issue involved in the suit, it
needs to be struck off. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to lead
irrelevant evidence.
In the result, following order is passed.
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No. 655 of 2019 is allowed.
2. The evidence of the plaintiff in paragraphs No. 3 to 8, 10 to 12, 14 to
16 is struck off.
3. Chamber Summons stands disposed off.
(Sanjay N. Yadav)
Judge,
Date: 19.11.2019 City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 19.11.2019
Transcribed on : 20.11.2019
Signed by HHJ on : 03.12.2019
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 03.12.2019 at 2.00 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. K.S.Bhosale
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room no.)
HHJ Shri. S. N. Yadav
C.R. no.05
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
19.11.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
03.12.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 03.12.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Ch.S. 655-2019 in Suit no. 2704-2014
-- 4 of 4 --