Luizinha Nunes And OrsVsLawrie Hermangild Nunes And Anr

Date: 26-03-2018
Reason For Adjournment: court time is over
Next Purpose: NOTICE OF MOTION
Next Hearing Date: 10-07-2018

Date: 10-07-2018
Business: Court is on leave
Next Purpose: NOTICE OF MOTION
Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2018

Date: 27-07-2018
Reason For Adjournment: court time is over
Next Purpose: NOTICE OF MOTION
Next Hearing Date: 03-09-2018

Date: 03-09-2018
Reason For Adjournment: court time is over
Next Purpose: NOTICE OF MOTION
Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2018

Date: 02-11-2018
Reason For Adjournment: court time is over
Next Purpose: NOTICE OF MOTION
Next Hearing Date: 15-01-2019

Date: 15-01-2019
Reason For Adjournment: court time is over
Next Purpose: NOTICE OF MOTION
Next Hearing Date: 28-02-2019

Date: 28-02-2019
Business: Resumed.
Adv. Fernandes for plaintiff and Adv. Chimalkar for defendant no. 2 are present. None for remaining defendants.
Adv. Fernandes filed affidavit in rejoinder to NM.   Copy served on def. no.2.
Adjd for reply of def. no. 1/arguments on NM to 25.04.2019.
Next Purpose: NM  ARGUMENTS
Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2019

Date: 25-04-2019
Business: Advocate Mr. D\''Mello for Plaintiff present
Advocate Mr. Valvekar for Defendant no.1 present
Advocate Mr. Parte for Defendant no.2 present
                         ORDER BELOW EXH.1
Perused record of the case.  It is noticed that contempt NM No.1680/2018 taken out by Plaintiff and it is pending in this suit.  As the contempt NM is pending, it becomes necessary to refer here case between Rampyaribai Wd/o of Sukhdev Daga and others Vs Niladevi, Wd/o of Narayandas Jakhotiya and others reported in 2007 (4) MHLJ at page 213. In said case, Hon\''ble High Court is pleased to observe that,
  Having heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties and having given my anxious thought in the matter, I find that the proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code are absolutely independent proceedings.  Whether there was breach of injunction or not is a question to be decided upon evidence and the said question has no relevance with the issues in the suit which are to be decided on merits of the suit. The eventuality of breach of injunction has occurred not at the time of filing of the suit but subsequent to the filing of the suit.  The issues framed in the suit on merits of the suit cannot be mixed up with the trial of the application (Ex. 37) for breach of injunction. The question whether the petitioner would be prejudiced or not is not relevant.  What is relevant is the practice and procedure that is required to be adopted while deciding the suit and the application for breach of injunction.  As a matter of fact, in my opinion, the application for breach of injunction should be separately registered as Misc. Judicial case and should be tried by framing appropriate issues.  Thus, the proceedings for breach of injunction has absolutely nothing to do with the decision of the suit on merits.  I fail to understand as to why the proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2A of Civil Procedure Code are not separately registered and separately tried by the learned trial Court.
On perusal of the record it is noticed that contempt NM is separately registered as NM No.1680/2018.  In such circumstances in view of observations of Hon\''ble High Court in the case cited Supra it becomes clear that contempt NM can be heard and decided separately. Hence, for settlement of issues in respect of NM No.1680/2018, parties are directed to file draft issues in the matter thereafter, issues will be settled by the Court and as directed by Hon\''ble High Court, separate evidence will be recorded for decision of contempt NM No.1680/2018 and said NM will be decided on merits as per the evidence adduced in said NM, hence I proceed to pass following order -
                                      ORDER
NM no.1680/2018 will be decided separately for that purpose, parties are directed to file draft issues in respect of NM No.1680/2018.
Advocate for Defendant no.2 submitted that matter may be adjourned for argument of NM no.1154/18.  Considering submissions adjourned.
Case is adjourned to 19/07/2019 for NM hearing and for filing draft issues by parties in respect of NM no.1680/18.
Next Purpose: NM  ARGUMENTS
Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2019

Date: 25-04-2019
Business: Advocate Mr. D\''Mello for Plaintiff present
Advocate Mr. Valvekar for Defendant no.1 present
Advocate Mr. Parte for Defendant no.2 present
                         ORDER BELOW EXH.1
Perused record of the case.  It is noticed that contempt NM No.1680/2018 taken out by Plaintiff and it is pending in this suit.  As the contempt NM is pending, it becomes necessary to refer here case between Rampyaribai Wd/o of Sukhdev Daga and others Vs Niladevi, Wd/o of Narayandas Jakhotiya and others reported in 2007 (4) MHLJ at page 213. In said case, Hon\''ble High Court is pleased to observe that,
  Having heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties and having given my anxious thought in the matter, I find that the proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code are absolutely independent proceedings.  Whether there was breach of injunction or not is a question to be decided upon evidence and the said question has no relevance with the issues in the suit which are to be decided on merits of the suit. The eventuality of breach of injunction has occurred not at the time of filing of the suit but subsequent to the filing of the suit.  The issues framed in the suit on merits of the suit cannot be mixed up with the trial of the application (Ex. 37) for breach of injunction. The question whether the petitioner would be prejudiced or not is not relevant.  What is relevant is the practice and procedure that is required to be adopted while deciding the suit and the application for breach of injunction.  As a matter of fact, in my opinion, the application for breach of injunction should be separately registered as Misc. Judicial case and should be tried by framing appropriate issues.  Thus, the proceedings for breach of injunction has absolutely nothing to do with the decision of the suit on merits.  I fail to understand as to why the proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2A of Civil Procedure Code are not separately registered and separately tried by the learned trial Court.
On perusal of the record it is noticed that contempt NM is separately registered as NM No.1680/2018.  In such circumstances in view of observations of Hon\''ble High Court in the case cited Supra it becomes clear that contempt NM can be heard and decided separately. Hence, for settlement of issues in respect of NM No.1680/2018, parties are directed to file draft issues in the matter thereafter, issues will be settled by the Court and as directed by Hon\''ble High Court, separate evidence will be recorded for decision of contempt NM No.1680/2018 and said NM will be decided on merits as per the evidence adduced in said NM, hence I proceed to pass following order -
                                      ORDER
NM no.1680/2018 will be decided separately for that purpose, parties are directed to file draft issues in respect of NM No.1680/2018.
Advocate for Defendant no.2 submitted that matter may be adjourned for argument of NM no.1154/18.  Considering submissions adjourned.
Case is adjourned to 19/07/2019 for NM hearing and for filing draft issues by parties in respect of NM no.1680/18.
Next Purpose: NM  ARGUMENTS
Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2019

Date: 25-04-2019
Business: Advocate Mr. D\''Mello for Plaintiff present
Advocate Mr. Valvekar for Defendant no.1 present
Advocate Mr. Parte for Defendant no.2 present
                         ORDER BELOW EXH.1
Perused record of the case.  It is noticed that contempt NM No.1680/2018 taken out by Plaintiff and it is pending in this suit.  As the contempt NM is pending, it becomes necessary to refer here case between Rampyaribai Wd/o of Sukhdev Daga and others Vs Niladevi, Wd/o of Narayandas Jakhotiya and others reported in 2007 (4) MHLJ at page 213. In said case, Hon\''ble High Court is pleased to observe that,
  Having heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties and having given my anxious thought in the matter, I find that the proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code are absolutely independent proceedings.  Whether there was breach of injunction or not is a question to be decided upon evidence and the said question has no relevance with the issues in the suit which are to be decided on merits of the suit. The eventuality of breach of injunction has occurred not at the time of filing of the suit but subsequent to the filing of the suit.  The issues framed in the suit on merits of the suit cannot be mixed up with the trial of the application (Ex. 37) for breach of injunction. The question whether the petitioner would be prejudiced or not is not relevant.  What is relevant is the practice and procedure that is required to be adopted while deciding the suit and the application for breach of injunction.  As a matter of fact, in my opinion, the application for breach of injunction should be separately registered as Misc. Judicial case and should be tried by framing appropriate issues.  Thus, the proceedings for breach of injunction has absolutely nothing to do with the decision of the suit on merits.  I fail to understand as to why the proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2A of Civil Procedure Code are not separately registered and separately tried by the learned trial Court.
On perusal of the record it is noticed that contempt NM is separately registered as NM No.1680/2018.  In such circumstances in view of observations of Hon\''ble High Court in the case cited Supra it becomes clear that contempt NM can be heard and decided separately. Hence, for settlement of issues in respect of NM No.1680/2018, parties are directed to file draft issues in the matter thereafter, issues will be settled by the Court and as directed by Hon\''ble High Court, separate evidence will be recorded for decision of contempt NM No.1680/2018 and said NM will be decided on merits as per the evidence adduced in said NM, hence I proceed to pass following order -
                                      ORDER
NM no.1680/2018 will be decided separately for that purpose, parties are directed to file draft issues in respect of NM No.1680/2018.
Advocate for Defendant no.2 submitted that matter may be adjourned for argument of NM no.1154/18.  Considering submissions adjourned.
Case is adjourned to 19/07/2019 for NM hearing and for filing draft issues by parties in respect of NM no.1680/18.
Next Purpose: NM  ARGUMENTS
Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2019

Date: 19-07-2019
Business: Court is busy in hearing NM in suit no.234/19 and court has to dictate order in suit no.6072/06, case is adjourned to 22/10/2019.
Next Purpose: NM  ARGUMENTS
Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2019

Date: 22-10-2019
Business: Advocate Geeta Sonavne for Plaintiff present
Advocate Sabnis for Defendant no.2 present and submitted that on next date his senior advocate will argue NM.  Considering submissions adjourned.
Case is adjourned to 15/01/2020 for NM hearing.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 15-01-2020

Date: 15-01-2020
Business: Advocate Ms. Shrushti Thorat for Plaintiff present and filed rejoinder to Notice of Motion, t.o.r.
Advocate Ms. Sukruta Chimankar for Defendant no.2 present.
Case is adjourned to 03/04/2020 for NM for hearing.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 03-03-2020

Date: 15-01-2020
Business: Advocate Ms. Shrushti Thorat for Plaintiff present and filed rejoinder to Notice of Motion, t.o.r.
Advocate Ms. Sukruta Chimankar for Defendant no.2 present.
Case is adjourned to 03/04/2020 for NM for hearing.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 03-04-2020

Date: 15-01-2020
Business: Advocate Ms. Shrushti Thorat for Plaintiff present and filed rejoinder to Notice of Motion, t.o.r.
Advocate Ms. Sukruta Chimankar for Defendant no.2 present.
Case is adjourned to 03/04/2020 for NM for hearing.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 03-04-2020

Date: 03-04-2020
Reason For Adjournment: National Lock Down
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 17-04-2020

Date: 03-04-2020
Reason For Adjournment: National Lock Down
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 17-04-2020

Date: 17-04-2020
Business: National Lock down
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2020

Date: 17-04-2020
Business: National Lock down
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2020

Date: 17-04-2020
Business: National Lock down
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2020

Date: 28-05-2020
Reason For Adjournment: National Lock Down
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2020

Date: 28-05-2020
Reason For Adjournment: National Lock Down
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2020

Date: 28-05-2020
Reason For Adjournment: National Lock Down
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2020

Date: 15-06-2020
Business: Due to lockdown case is adjd. to 10.08.2020
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2020

Date: 15-06-2020
Business: Due to lockdown case is adjd. to 10.08.2020
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2020

Date: 10-08-2020
Business: Adjourned due to covid-19.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 21-09-2020

Date: 21-09-2020
Business: None present for plaintiff.
None present for Defendant.
Due to Corona it seems no parties turn to the court hence adjd. to 14/12/2020.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2020

Date: 14-12-2020
Business: court is on Leave.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2021

Date: 24-02-2021
Business: Adv Mr. Fernandes for plff present and filed draft issues in NM No.1680/2018 as per previous order.
Defendant No.2 present in person and seeks adjournment.
By consent, matter is adjd.for NM hearing to 16.04.2021.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2021

Date: 16-04-2021
Reason For Adjournment: Adjourned due to Covid-19
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2021

Date: 16-04-2021
Reason For Adjournment: Adjourned due to Covid-19
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2021

Date: 06-07-2021
Reason For Adjournment: Adjourned due to Covid-19
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 26-08-2021

Date: 06-07-2021
Reason For Adjournment: Adjourned due to Covid-19
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 26-08-2021

Date: 06-07-2021
Reason For Adjournment: Adjourned due to Covid-19
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 26-08-2021

Date: 26-08-2021
Business: Adv Mr. Fernandes for plff present.
Adv Mr. Sabnis for deft No.2 present and filed adjournment application Call say of plff. Say filed by adv. for plff as “ I consent”.
Order- Matter is time bound as per directions of Hon’ble High Court and said fact is brought to the notice of the Court today. Ld.Adv for the plff also seeks time hence, granted till 31.08.2021 is granted to  protect of interest of justice.
Matter is adjd. for NM hearing to 31.08.2021.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 31-08-2021

Date: 31-08-2021
Business: Adv Mr. Fernandes for plff present.
Adv. Mr. Anushk Sabnis h/f Adv Mr. S.B. Prabhavalkar for deft No.2 present requested to keep back the matter.
K.B.
L.O. at 4.20 p.m.
Adv Mr. Fernandes for plff present.
Adv.Mr. S.B. Prabhavalkar for deft No.2 present.
After hearing the argument for some time, ld. Advocate for the plff submitted that plff wants to produce certain more documents in support of NM No.1154/2018. Ld. Advocate for deft No.2 submitted that if plff wants to file any new material, it is necessary to give opportunity to deft No.2 to deal with it. I do agree with his argument.
By consent, matter is adjd. for production of additional documents if any by the pflf and for additional affidavit if any by deft No.2 in NM No.1154/2018  and for further NM hearing to 07.09.2021 at 3.30 p.m.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2021

Date: 07-09-2021
Business: None present for plff.
Adv Mr. S.D. Prabhawalkar for deft No.2 present.
K.B.
L.O. at 4.15 p.m.
Adv Mr. Fernandes for plff present and filed additional affidavit of plff No.3 in support of NM No.1154/2018. Copy already given to the adv. for deft No.2.
Adv Mr. S.D. Prabhawalkar for deft No.2 present and filed additional affidavit of deft No.2 in NM No.1154/2018 in view of filing additional reply by the plff No.3 today.
During arguments in NM No.1154/2018, ld. Advocate for the plff made a reference to the rejoinder filed by the plaintiff to the reply filed by deft No.1. Perusal of the record shows that order to proceed with the suit without WS and with the NM without reply is already passed against deft No.1 on 03.09.2018. Ld. Advocates for plff and deft No.2 submitted that deft No.1 has served the copies of his reply on both of them. Adv. for plff requested to grant adjournment by submitting that he will serve a notice on deft No.1 for next date for filing his said reply on record of the Court. As mentioned earlier, order is already passed to proceed with the N.M. without reply of deft No.1 however, since both the contesting parties want that reply of deft No.1 to NM No.1154/2018 would be material for considering the said NM, by consent, matter is adjd. for further NM hearing with liberty to the advocate for the plff to  serve notice on deft No.1 as is requested by him.
By consent, matter is adjd. for further argument to 18.09.2021 at 2.45 p.m.
Next Purpose: S.CT.H.CT. TIME BOUND
Next Hearing Date: 18-09-2021

Date: 18-09-2021
Business: Adv Mr. Fernandes for plff present.
Deft No.2 present. Adv.for deft No.1 absent.
Adv Mr. Rahul Walwekar for deft No.1 present and filed vakalatnama on behalf of deft No.1. He also filed affidavit in reply of deft No.1 dt.19.04.2018 in N.M.No.1154/2018. Adv. for the plff has no objection to take said reply on record as copy of said reply is already served previously on the plff and deft No.2.
K.B.
L.O. at 3.00 p.m.
Adv Mr. Fernandes for plff present.
Adv Mr. Rahul Walwekar for deft No.1 present.
Deft No.2 present with Adv Mr. S.D. Prabhawalkar for deft.
Ld. advocates for the parties submitted matter may be adjourned to next date as parties may make attempts to settle the matter out of Court. In view of those statements, to protect the interest of justice, further argument in the NM is adjourned till next date.
By consent, matter is adjd. for settlement/further NM hearing to  12.10.2021.
Next Purpose: S.CT.H.CT. TIME BOUND
Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2021

Date: 12-10-2021
Business: Adv Mr. D’mello present for plff.
Adv Mr. Rahul Walwekar present for deft.No.1.
Adv Mr. Prabhawalkar present for deft No.2.
K.B.
L.O.at 3.45 p.m
Same appearance as above.
Heard arguments of advocates for plff and deft No.1 in N.M.No. 1680/2018.
Adv. for deft No.2 requested to keep the matter for his argument on next date.
On request of adv. for deft No.2, matter is adjd. for argument of deft No.2 in N.M.No.1680/2018 to 14.10.2021 at 3.00 p.m.
Next Purpose: S.CT.H.CT. TIME BOUND
Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2021

Date: 14-10-2021
Business: Adv Mr. D’mello present for plff.
Son of Deft No.1 present in person.
Adv Mr. Prabhawalkar present for deft No.2.
Adv. for plff and deft No.2 brought  to the notice that it is incorrectly mentioned in roznama of previous date that argument in N.M.No.1680/2018 is heard and in fact, the argument in NM. No.1154/2018 is in progress.
As it is accidental mistake in the roznama of previous date, N.M.No.1680/2018 appearing in last roznama is replaced by N.M.No.1154/2018 for maintaining the record properly.
Heard argument partly of adv. for deft No.2 in N.M.No.1154/2018.
By consent, matter is adjd. for argument of deft No.2 in N.M.No.1154/2018 to 21.10.2021 at 3.30 p.m.
Next Purpose: S.CT.H.CT. TIME BOUND
Next Hearing Date: 21-10-2021

Date: 21-10-2021
Business: Adv Mr. Prabhawalkar for deft No.2 present and mentioned the matter in the morning session. He seeks adjournment by submitting that he will not be in a position to attend this Court in the afternoon session due to his eye problem.
Matter is on the board of afternoon session hence, kept back
L.O. at 4.00 p.m.
Holding Adv. for deft No.2 present.
None present for plff and deft No.1.
On request made by adv. for deft No.2 in the morning session, matter is adjd. for further NM hearing to  28.10.2021. at 4.00 p.m.
Next Purpose: S.CT.H.CT. TIME BOUND
Next Hearing Date: 28-10-2021

Date: 28-10-2021
Business: Adv Mr. D’mello for plff present.
Adv Mr. Prabhawalkar for deft No.2 present.
None present for deft No.1
By consent, Matter is adjd. for further NM argument to 15.11.2021.
Next Purpose: S.CT.H.CT. TIME BOUND
Next Hearing Date: 15-11-2021

Date: 15-11-2021
Business: Adv Mr. D’mello present for plff.
Adv Mr. Prabhawalkar present for deft.No.2.
Heard further argument of adv for deft No.2 and rejoinder argument of adv. for the plffs in N.M.No. 1154/2018.
Matter is adjd. for order in N.M.No.1154/2018 and hearing in NM No.1680/2018 to 22.11.2021.
Next Purpose: ORDER
Next Hearing Date: 22-11-2021

Date: 22-11-2021
Business: None present for both parties.
K.B.
L.O. at 5.30 p.m.
Adv Mr.Fernandes for plffs present.
Deft No.1 and deft No.2 are present in person. Their advocates absent.
F.R.S.R. followin order is passed in N.M.No.1154/2018
                ORDER
Notice of Motion No.1154/2018 is allowed in terms of its prayer clauses “a” and “b”.
------
Matter is adjd. for evidence in contempt N.M.No.1680/2018 to 10.01.2022.
authenticated copy of this roznama be given to both the parties as per rules.
Nature Of Disposal: ALLOWED
Disposal Date: 22-11-2021

Main Case No: SUIT/0100657/2018
Main Cnr: MHCC010029162018
Main Filing No: 111447

Registration Number: 101154/2018
Transfer Date: 11-04-2019
From Court: 1 - COURT 01 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
To Court: 9 - COURT 09 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE

Registration Number: 101154/2018
Transfer Date: 10-06-2021
From Court: 9 - COURT 09 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
To Court: 62 - COURT 62 AD-HOC  ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE

Filing Number: 104115/2018
Filing Date: 17-03-2018
First Hearing Date: 26th March 2018
Decision Date: 22nd November 2021
Court Number And Judge: 62-COURT 62 AD-HOC  ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE