Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1/2 NM No.1125/18 in Su.3411/2011
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT, AT MUMBAI
CNR No. : MHCC010036492018
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1125/2018
IN
SUIT NO.3411 OF 2011
Ramkrishna Dharurkar ...Plaintiff
V/s.
Abhay Dharurkar & Anr. ...Defendants
Adv. Harish Pawar for plaintiff.
Adv. Sheth for defendant no.2.
CORAM : HHJ Shri. G.R. Agrawal
CR No.3
DATED : 4.3.2019.
ORDER
(Dictated in open court)
By this notice of motion, the plaintiff is praying to discard the
affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of Danial George defendant
no.2. The Constituted Attorney of defendant no.2 has filed reply.
2. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
3. There is no dispute that Power of Attorney of defendant no.2 was
examined as DW1 and she was also crossexamined on behalf of
plaintiff. On 1.2.2018, the defendants filed evidence of defendant no.2
himself. Hence, the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has filed the present
motion to discard the said affidavit on the ground that Power of
Attorney of defendant no.2 is already examined on behalf of defendant
no.2. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 has submitted that now defendant
-- 1 of 3 --
2/2 NM No.1125/18 in Su.3411/2011
no.2 himself wants to enter the witness box and therefore he wanted to
examine himself as a second witness.
4. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff fairly
admitted that the provisions of Order 18 of C.P.C. are not mandatory
but directory. The Ld. Counsel for defendants has cited the ruling in
the case of Sanjay V/s. Vimal, AIR 2000 Bom. 84, wherein Hon'ble
Bombay High Court has held that provisions of Order 18 are not
mandatory. In view of this judgment, the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
submitted that the defendant no.2 can be permitted to examine himself
after examination of his Power of Attorney. In any case, after hearing
the Ld. Counsel for the parties, I find that if the party himself wants to
enter the witness box after adducing evidence of his Power of Attorney,
said party cannot be refused since the personal knowledge of party is
important for effective adjudication of the case. No prejudice will be
caused to plaintiff if defendant no.2 is allowed to examine himself.
Hence, notice of motion is liable to be rejected. Hence, following order.
ORDER
Notice of motion no. 1125 of 2018 is dismissed
(G.R. Agrawal)
Judge
City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 4.3.2019
Transcribed on : 4.3.2019
Signed on : 5.3.2019
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
5.3.2019 at 10.45 am (Mrs. S. W. Tuscano)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
-- 2 of 3 --
3/2 NM No.1125/18 in Su.3411/2011
Name of the Judge (with Court
room no.)
HHJ Shri G. R. Agrawal, C.R.
No.3
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
4.1.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
5.3.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
5.3.2019
-- 3 of 3 --