Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: MHCC010044772020
CNR NO. MHCC010044772020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1479 OF 2020
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.725 OF 2016
Fluidline Valves Company Private Limited ]… Plaintiff.
V/s.
Tech Sharp Engineers Pvt. Ltd. ]... Defendant.
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Mr. A.N. Khatri for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Sawant a/w Adv. Vijay Ghedia for defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. R.K. KSHIRSAGAR
(C.R.No.13)
DATED : 28th June, 2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Notice of Motion is taken out by the defendant
for review and recall of order dated 13.06.2019. The defendant further
prayed to decide the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction and to initiate
perjury proceedings against the plaintiff for suppressing the true and
correct facts and documents and making false statements on oath.
-- 1 of 5 --
2 NM 1479/2020 in
Suit 725/2016
2. It was submitted by the defendant that the plaintiff has
fabricated the documents and made a false statement on oath. The
plaintiff was aware that in the event of any dispute, the Courts in
Chennai will have the jurisdiction. The defendant appeared in the
matter. The conditional order in Summons for Judgment has put into
great hardship and disability to defend the present suit. The present
Court does not have jurisdiction to try the suit as the Courts at Chennai
has the jurisdiction to try the matter. The plaintiff has suppressed the
said fact and therefore perjury proceedings be initiated against him.
The plaintiff was aware that as per terms and conditions on the
purchase order the Court at Chennai will have the jurisdiction but still
the plaintiff filed the present suit before this Court and therefore, the
issue regarding the terrritorial jurisdiction be decided first.
3. The plaintiff filed reply and denied the contention of the
defendant. It was submitted that in view of deletion of Section 9(a) of
the Code of Civil Procedure, the preliminary issue cannot be framed.
Moreover, the plaintiff was not aware about any terms and conditions
because the said terms and conditions were printed overleaf of the
purchase order. The defendant deleberately filed the present Notice of
Motion only to delay the compliance of the order passed in Summons
for Judgment and therefore, present Notice of Motion be dismissed.
4. Heard Learned Advocate for plaintiff and defendant at
length. Also perused the written submission of the defendant.
5. The Learned Advocate for defendant relied upon following
citations as follows:
-- 2 of 5 --
3 NM 1479/2020 in
Suit 725/2016
1. 2015(3) Mh.L.J. NARAYANLAL PVT. LTD. Vs. ION
EXCHANGE (INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI.
2. (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1 S.P.
CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY LRS. Vs.
JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. In Civil
Appeal No.994 of 1972
6. After going through the submissions of both the parties, it
seems that the plaintiff filed the present Summary Suit for recovery of
the amount on the basis of the purchase order and the invoices. As per
the order in Summons for Judgment the defendant was directed to
deposite the amount of Rs.6,04,200/. However, the defendant failed
to comply the order and therefore, the matter was proceeded further for
evidence of plaintiff and was also fixed for Judgment. The defendant
then filed the present Notice of Motion. The first prayer of the
defendants is to recall and to review the order passed in Summons for
Judgment dated 13.06.2019. It seems that there is no error apparent
on the face of record in the said Summons for Judgment. The
defendant had not shown that there is any error on record in the said
order and therefore, the said order dated 13.06.2019 is not liable to the
set aside. So far as the question of issue of territorial jurisdiction is
concerned, due to deletion of Section 9(a) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the preliminary issue cannot be framed and all the issues
arising shall be decided as per Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
And therefore, the contention of the defendant regarding the territorial
jurisdiction has to be decided alongwith main suit at appropriate stage.
So far as question of perjury proceeding is concerned it does not appear
that any facts had been suppressed by the plaintiff. It also does not
appear that the false statements were made by the plaintiff at this stage
-- 3 of 5 --
4 NM 1479/2020 in
Suit 725/2016
and therefore, the prayer of defendant to initiate perjury proceeding
against the plaintiff is without any substance. Therefore, I, proceed to
pass the following order:
ORDER
1. The Notice of Motion No.1479 of 2020 is dismissed.
2. Parties to bear their own costs.
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Dt.: 28062022 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
Dictated on : 28062022
Transcribed on : 29062022
checked on : 30062022
Signed on : 30062022
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 4 of 5 --
5 NM 1479/2020 in
Suit 725/2016
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
30.06.2022 at 03.20 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME (VARSHA U. PAWAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Smt.R.K.Kshirsagar
(COURT ROOM NO.13)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
28.06.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 30.06.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 30.06.2022
-- 5 of 5 --