Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: ..1.. NM 1367/2018 IN SUIT 1729/2017
MHCC010043202018 Notice of Motion Filed : 31/03/2018
Arguments Over : 10/09/2025
Decided on : 10/09/2025
Duration : 07 Y : 05 M : 11 D
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT, GREATER MUMBAI AT
MAZGAON
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1367 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO.1729 OF 2017
NAB workshop for the Blind )..Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. In & Out Advertising & Anr. )..Defendants
Appearances :-
Ld. Adv. Arshaan Lentin for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Suraj Shetye for defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SACHIN SURYAKANT PATIL
COURT ROOM NO.84
DATE : 10/09/2025.
ORDER
1) This notice of motion is filed for rejection of plaint under Order
VII Rule 11 of CPC. Heard both the parties.
2) Advocate for defendants argued that the suit has been filed for
recovery of arrears of license fees for use of hoarding site. Suit has not
been filed within limitation. Moreover, suit is in respect of recovery of
-- 1 of 4 --
..2.. NM 1367/2018 IN SUIT 1729/2017
possession. Hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present Suit
as per Section 41 of Small Causes Court Act. Hence, the plaint is barred
by law. Therefore, this application for rejection of plaint vide Order VII
Rule 11(d) of CPC.
3) Advocate for plaintiff argued that Suit has been filed within
limitation. The issue of limitation is mixed question of law and fact. This
Court has jurisdiction to try the present Suit, which has been filed for
recovery of license fees and not for recovery of possession. Hence, the
notice of motion be rejected.
4) This is a summary suit for recovery of arrears of license fees for
use of advertisement hoarding site. Plaintiff has not sought the recovery
of possession of the premises. According to plaintiff, the plea of
defendants in respect of declaration of tenancy has already been rejected
by the Competent Court. No right was created in respect of hoarding site
in favour of defendants. The defendants have removed their display from
the hoarding site. The issue of limitation is mixed question of law and
facts. From affidavit in support of notice of motion, it is evident that
defendants are claiming that plaintiff has falsely pleaded the date of
accrual of cause of action to file present suit. From averments in the
plaint, it is not evident that suit is
ex-facie barred by law of limitation.
For application of rejection of plaint, Court has to see the pleadings in
the plaint. From the averments in the plaint, it is evident that plaintiff
has made averments for showing that the suit has been filed within
limitation and it is not barred by law. Therefore, at this stage, plaint
cannot be rejected at threshold on the grounds stated by the defendants.
-- 2 of 4 --
..3.. NM 1367/2018 IN SUIT 1729/2017
Hence, I pass the following order :
O R D E R
1. Notice of motion No.1367 of 2018 is rejected.
2. Notice of motion No.1367 of 2018 is disposed of accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
( Sachin Suryakant Patil )
Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Mazgaon,
Mumbai, C.R. No.84.
Date: 10/09/2025.
Dictated and typed on : 10/09/2025.
Signed by HHJ on : 10/09/2025.
-- 3 of 4 --
..4.. NM 1367/2018 IN SUIT 1729/2017
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Sonali S. Naik
Name of Stenographer12/09/2025 12.00 p.m.
Name of the Judge (With C.R. No.) HHJ SACHIN SURYAKANT PATIL
(COURT ROOM NO.84)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT / ORDER
10/09/2025
JUDGMENT / ORDER signed by
P.O. on
10/09/2025
JUDGMENT / ORDER uploaded on 12/09/2025
-- 4 of 4 --