Interim Order 2

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: Order Below Exh.27 Suit No.998/2019
MHCC010039962019
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT
BOMBAY
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT 27
IN
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO. 998/2019
(CNR NO. MHCC010039962019)
Smt. Tajma Khatoon Anis Ahmed Choudhary … Plaintiff
Versus
Abdul Gani Nizamuddin Shaikh … Defendant
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE, A. C. DAGA
: COURT ROOM NO. 61
DATE : 30.06.2025
Appearances:-
Adv. Sunita Dubey h/f Adv. B. P. Shukla for plaintiff.
Adv. Ramesh Kumar Singh for defendant.
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
Instant application is filed by the defendant praying
that the Advocates representing the defendant be barred to
represent the defendant. It is pleaded that the Advocates has
represented the defendant and his family members and are now
representing the opposite party in this Suit.
2. The plaintiff contested the application and submitted
that identical complaint was made to the Bar Council in PE
-- 1 of 4 --
Order Below Exh.27 2 Suit No.998/2019
Complaint No.223 and 224 of 2024. Same has been considered as
baseless and fraudulent and has been dismissed. The plaintiff has
denied all adverse pleadings in the application.
3. Heard both sides. Perused record.
4. During arguments the Ld. Advocate for plaintiff raised
objection for maintainability of instant application by relying upon
the Judgment in the matter of ‘Anandrao Vithoba Pawar’ Vs.
Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board and Ors., in
Writ Petition No.9357/2013’, wherein Hon’ble Bombay High Court
has held that “all these applications are required to be supported
by an affidavit of the party making the application. Even it is held
that for different types of relief, Notice of Motion, Chamber
Summons, Judges Order and Chamber Order are the types of
application. It has been held that the procedure prescribed is
expected to be followed by the litigants, lawyers and the Court and
there can be no exception to it. The application which is not in the
prescribed proforma and is not supported by affidavit therefore,
itself is not tenable.”
5. Now, coming to the facts of the application, it is
pleaded in application that the plaintiff’s Advocate have
represented the defendant and his family members at earlier point
of time. As per plaintiff on identical facts complaint was made to
Bar Council of Maharashtra and after enquiry was dismissed. If at
all that is so then naturally no force in the application. Accordingly,
instant application needs to be rejected. As such, I passed the
-- 2 of 4 --
Order Below Exh.27 3 Suit No.998/2019
following Order.
ORDER
1. Application at (Exh.27) is rejected.
2. Accordingly, application at (Exh.27) stands disposed off.
DATE: 30.06.2025 (A. C. DAGA)
JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT
& ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
GR. MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 30.06.2025
Transcribed on : 30.06.2025
Checked on : 30.06.2025
Signed on : 30.06.2025
-- 3 of 4 --
Order Below Exh.27 4 Suit No.998/2019
"CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER"
DATE: 30.06.2025, AT 05.58 P. M. Siddhesh S. Shirke
STENOGRAPHER (GRADE-I)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court
no.)
: SHRI A. C. DAGA (C. R. NO.
61)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/order : 30.06.2025
Judgment/order signed by the P. O.
on : 30.06.2025
Judgment/order uploaded on : 30.06.2025
-- 4 of 4 --