Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 554 OF 2020
IN
STAMP NO. 4094 of 2020
Mrs. Shilpa Anil Bhingarde ]
Age 45 years, R/a 25/A, Soman Nagar, ]
Bal Mukund Marg, Chinchpokli (East), ]
Mumbai – 400 012. ].. Plaintiff
V/s
1. Deraiya Realtors Pvt. Ltd., ]
F-97, Kohinoor City Mall, Off. L.B.S. Marg, ]
Kurla (West), Mumbai 400 070 ]
2. Mr. Amogh Sawant, ]
Sole proprietor of M/s. Adit Enterprises ]
having office address at 5, Suryaji Niwas, ]
200, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), ]
Mumbai – 400 028 ]
Also residing at 1302, “Dhara”, “E” Moses ]
Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. ]
3. Nehru Nagar Guruprasad Co-operative ]
Housing Society Ltd., ]
having address at Ground Floor, building ]
No.40, Mauje Kurla “3” Nehru Nagar, ]
Kurla (East), Mumbai 400 024. ]
4. Maharashtra Housing and Area ]
Development Authority, ]
Griha Nirman Bhavan, Kalanagar, ]
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. ]..Defendants.
-- 1 of 5 --
2
Appearance:
Advocate Mr. Rajesh Dharap for the plaintiff.
Advocate Mr. Pradeep Gandhy for defendant No.1.
Advocate Mr. Hardik Desai for defendant No.3.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
S.R. SALUNKHE.
(C.R. No. 12)
DATE : 12th NOVEMBER, 2020
ORAL ORDER
This Chamber Summons is taken out by the plaintiff
praying to direct the defendant No.1 to give inspection and to provide
copy of the offer dated 22.09.2016 given to the defendant No.3/society
by the defendant No.1/Developer as referred to the Society Minutes of
the meeting dated 24.09.2016.
2. In the affidavit in support of this Chamber Summons, the
plaintiff has contended that the Letter dated 22.09.2016 is material
document to be brought on record to decide the issue involved in the
suit. During the course of arguments on Notice of Motion, the learned
advocate for the defendant No.1 had agreed to deliver the copy of that
letter to the plaintiff, but subsequently, he changed his mind and such
copy was refused. Hence, this Chamber Summons.
3. The defendant No.1 in his affidavit in reply has contended
that the letter dated 22.09.2016 is not relevant to the subject matter of
the suit. That was the part of correspondence during negotiation with
the defendant No.1 by the defendant No.3/Society. The development
-- 2 of 5 --
3
agreement has been subsequently executed on 14.03.2017 and it
includes all the terms and conditions. There is reference of the letter
dated 22.09.2016 in that agreement itself. The terms of concluded
contract are executable and not the negotiation took place at the time of
proposal and acceptance of the offer. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot
call upon the defendant No.1 to produce that document which is
absolutely irrelevant.
4. Heard the learned advocates for both the parties. The
defendant No.2 was the earlier Developer, who could not start the
development work as per the development agreement and therefore,
the defendant No.3/society cancelled that agreement and executed the
second development agreement with the defendant No.1. According to
the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 has accepted all the liability of the
defendant No.2 including the liability towards third party purchaser of
saleable component of newly constructed building. That will reflect
from the letter dated 22.09.2016.
5. According to me, the document as called for has relevance
to the subject matter of the suit. The question whether the contents in
that letter binds the defendant No.1 or whether the plaintiff would get
any benefit therefrom would be a question of fact, that can be decided
by hearing both the parties. However, to decide a suit in just manner,
the parties shall be allowed to bring best evidence before the Court.
Mere, reference of the letter dated 22.09.2016 in the development
agreement dated 14.03.2017 will not be sufficient. The recital of that
letter shall be taken into consideration to gather the real intention
between the contracting parties as to the rights of third party
purchasers.
-- 3 of 5 --
4
6. The document called for is admittedly in the possession of
the defendant No.1. The plaintiff has already issued notice to produce
that document before the Court and on receipt of the notice, the
defendant No.1 has failed to produce that document. Thus, I hold that
the plaintiff is entitled to seek the production of such document through
Court.
7. Having found that the document called for i.e. the letter
dated 22.09.2016 is relevant for the subject matter of the suit, such
document shall be brought on record. Thus, the prayer of the plaintiff
deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order:
O R D E R
1. The Chamber Summons No. 554 of 2020 is
made absolute.
2. The defendant No.1 shall produce a true copy of
letter dated 22.09.2016 as referred in the Chamber
Summons on record and supply its copy to the
plaintiff on or before next date.
3. The Chamber Summons No554 of 2020
stands disposed of accordingly.
(S. R. SALUNKHE)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 12/11/2020. Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 12/11/2020
Transcribed on : 12/11/2020
Signed on : 12/11/2020
-- 4 of 5 --
5
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
12/11/2020 At 1.00 p.m. MRS. SUPRIYA S. PAWAR
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ MR. S. R. SALUNKHE
(C.R.NO.12)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
12/11/2020
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 12/11/2020
Judgment/Order uploaded on 12/11/2020
-- 5 of 5 --