Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: Notice of motion 1079/2018 : 1 : L.C.Suit .No.963 of 18
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER BOMBAY
Notice of Motion No 1079 of 2018
IN
L.C. SUIT NO.963 of 2018
Mr. Hemant S/o Madan Thakkar ..Plaintiff
V/s
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ....Defendant
Advocate Mr.A.M.Sarogi for the Plaintiff.
Advocate Mr. Kumawat for Defendant /BMC.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. G.B.GURAO
DATE : 21st APRIL 2018.
(Court Room No.06)
O R D E R
1. Plaintiff has taken out this notice of motion for permission
to cross examine defendants officer namely P.S.Sonawane, Jr.
Engineer.
2 According to plaintiff, plaintiff has filed the present suit
and thereby challenged the notice dated 1/03/2018 and order dated
3/3/2018. Plaintiff has also moved notice of motion for grant of ad
interim injunction.
3 Defendant has filed affidavit in reply to the notice of
motion of one P.S. Sonawane. In the affidavit of reply defendant denied
the contention in the plaint and made various false statements on
oath. It also appears that defendant has prepared false and forged
documents . Therefore, it is necessary to cross examine the deponent
Shri P.S.Sonawane of falsify his statement. Hence, prayed to allow
notice of motion.
4 I have heard Ld advocate A.M Sarogi for the plaintiff and
Shri Kumawat advocate for defendant.
-- 1 of 4 --
Notice of motion 1079/2018 : 2 : L.C.Suit .No.963 of 18
5 Shri Sarogi advocate for plaintiff has submitted that
plaintiff has not made unauthorized construction. Defendant did not
consider the reply of the plaitniff and hastily passed the order.
Defendant in a reply to the notice of motion has made false statement
hence, in such a circumstances, it is necessary to cross examine the
defendants officer. In support of its contention he relied on Ram
Swaroop and Others V/s Bholu Ram, AIR 1991 Rajasthan 56.
6 Shri Kumawat advocate for defendant has submitted that
defendant has many time demolished the structure of the plaintiff.
However, plaintiff has repeatedly made unauthorized construction. He
supports impugned notice and order. He further submitted that he is
ready to keep present defendant's officer for cross examination.
7 I have perused the record. It appears that the defendant
has many times demolished the disputed structure with the help of the
police. Plaintiff denied the said fact. In Ram Swaroop and Others
Supra Hon'ble High Court held that:
'Deponent of proceeding would be permitted to be cross
examined by aggrieved parties.'
Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and
submission of the Ld Councel for the defendant that he will keep
present the deponent for cross examination, I pass following order:
ORDER
1 Notice of Motion No 1079/2018 is hereby allowed.
2 Defendant is directed to keep present witness Shri
P.S. Sonawane, Junior Engineer on 24/4/2018.
-- 2 of 4 --
Notice of motion 1079/2018 : 3 : L.C.Suit .No.963 of 18
3 Notice of motion disposed of accordingly.
Date : 21/4/2018. (G.B.Gurao)
Judge,
City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 21.04.2018
Typed on : 21.04.2018
Signed by HHJ. : 24/04/2018
-- 3 of 4 --
Notice of motion 1079/2018 : 4 : L.C.Suit .No.963 of 18
“ CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
24/4/2018 Mr. S.D. Raje
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
(H.G.)
Name of the Judge (with Court
Room No.)
Shri. G.B.Gurao
(CR.No.06)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT/ORDER
21/4/2018
JUDGEMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
23/4/2018
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
24/4/2018
-- 4 of 4 --