Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: Chamber Summons No. 827/2019 in chamber summons no.
1168/2012 in Execution application 63/2011 in Suit
No.6481/1973
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 827 OF 2019
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 63 OF 2011
IN
SUIT NO. 6481 OF 1973
(CNR NO. MHCC010041062019 )
The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay …. Plaintiff
Versus
Shri Pandurang Patloji Bhosle and Ors ….Defendants
Shri Taha Nooruddin Modi and Anr ….Obstructionists
Appearance:
Adv. Rajesh Bhosale for obstructionist.
Adv. Roop Basu for plaintiff.
CORUM : SMT. S.S. NAGUR,
JUDGE,
(C.R.NO.20)
DATE : 03/03/2021
ORAL ORDER
1) Heard Adv. Mr. Rajesh Bhosale for obstructionist and
Adv. Roop Basu for plaintiff. Perused contents of chamber
summons supported by affidavit of Shri Shoaib Batish the
constituted attorney of opponents/obstructionist. The Decree
holder not filed reply but stated that they will argue the chamber
summons.
2) The obstructionist in this chamber summons seeking
relief to recast issues framed by my predecessor on 08.10.2018.
The obstructionist stated that the reply/written statement is not
considered while framing the issue. Hence prayed to allow the
...1/
-- 1 of 4 --
Chamber Summons No. 827/2019 in chamber summons no.
1168/2012 in Execution application 63/2011 in Suit
No.6481/1973
2
chamber summons. On the other hand Adv. Roop Basu for Decree
holder argued that the disputed facts are to be considered for
framing issues. The negative issue cannot be framed.
3) I have gone through the contents of reply wherein
substantial pleading is in respect of the other proceedings
decided by Hon'ble Apex court and Hon'ble High court. In para
No. XVIII the obstructionist stated that in TR No. 31/2004 the
plaintiff port confirmed the policy earlier framed under
“Compromise proposals” by TR No. 152 dt. 22.06.1999 that all
cases at any stage of litigation be settled under compromise
proposal except where possession of premises is taken back or
where court has pass order to break open lock, which were to be
rejected and that in cases where possession is taken and restored
by the court request for compromise be brought up before court.
The obstructionist is claiming that he has complied with above
compromise proposal but the same has not been decided by
Decree holder.
4) I have also gone through the pleadings of DH in
Chamber summons No. 1168/2012. The Decree holder has filed
the chamber summons to remove obstructionist on the ground
that they are rank trespasser. On the other hand obstructionist in
written statement stated that they are doing business since 2008.
The DH stated that decree is passed on 02.12.2005. I have gone
through the issues framed by my predecessor. Considering the
...2/
-- 2 of 4 --
Chamber Summons No. 827/2019 in chamber summons no.
1168/2012 in Execution application 63/2011 in Suit
No.6481/1973
3
pleading of parties the issues are to be recasted. Hence pass
following order :
ORDER
1. The Chamber Summons is allowed
and the issues dt 18.10.2018 are
recasted.
2. Accordingly chamber summons is
disposed of.
(S.S. Nagur)
Date : 03/03/2021 Judge
City Civil Court,
Greater Mumbai.
Dictated on : 03/03/2021
Transcribed on : 03/03/2021
Signed on : 03/03/2021
...3/
-- 3 of 4 --
Chamber Summons No. 827/2019 in chamber summons no.
1168/2012 in Execution application 63/2011 in Suit
No.6481/1973
4
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT, COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
DATE & TIME OF UPLOADING : NAME OF TYPIST
03/03/2021 & 5.55 pm : Mr. Mohit M. Patange
Name of the Judge (with Court no.) : HHJ Smt. S.S. Nagur
(CR no. 20)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/ : 03/03/2021
Order
Judgment/Order signed by the P.O. on : 03/03/2021
Judgment/Order uploaded on : 03/03/2021
...4/
-- 4 of 4 --