Skip to main content
Court Order

Order 1

CNR MHCC01005156201804 Feb 2023
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Order 1 · 04 Feb 2023 · CNR MHCC010051562018

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: 1 OBE 21 Suit 1531/18
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI.
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT 21
IN
SUIT NO.1531 OF 2018
Smt.Saveetha Kumar Devendra ...Plaintiff.
V/s.
Smt.Angamma Ramaswamy Devendra ...Defendant.
Appearance
Mr.R.A. Yadav, learned Advocate for the plaintiff.
Mr.Harikrishnan Mishra, learned Advocate for proposed defendant
No.1.
Mr.Mansi Jain h/f.Adv.Usha Tiwari, learned Advocate for
obstructionist/applicant.
CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE
ADHOC JUDGE
(C.R.No.62)
DATED : 04th February, 2023.
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT 21
This application is filed by the plaintiff requesting to set aside the
no argument order passed against the plaintiff in chamber summons
No.1017/2022 on 01.12.2022.
2. The application is opposed by proposed defendant No.1 by reply
Exh.26 and obstructionist Nos.1 and 2 by reply Exh.25.
3. Heard learned Advocate for the plaintiff and learned advocates
-- 1 of 4 --
2 OBE 21 Suit 1531/18
for defendant No.1 and obstructionist Nos.1 and 2. Read the roznama
dated 01.12.2022. The chamber summons was fixed for hearing in the
Morning Session. Learned advocates for proposed defendant No.1(c)
and obstructionist were appeared. Nobody remained present for the
plaintiff. Matter was twicely called out and kept back. In spite of same,
the plaintiff remained absent. On the same date argument of advocates
of defendant No.1(c) and obstructionist was heard in Chamber
Summons No.1017/2022. As the plaintiff remained absent no argument
order was passed against the plaintiff and the case was adjourned to
13.12.2022. The plaintiff filed application for setting aside the aforesaid
order of no argument.
4. It is the contention of the plaintiff that on 01.12.2022 the plaintiff
was engaged before the Hon'ble High Court and therefore, she could
not attend the hearing of Chamber Summons No.1017/2022. It is the
contention of defendant No.1(c) and the obstructionist that the
application is not maintainable as no notice of motion is filed. The
contentions are also raised that the chamber summons is barred by
limitation and suit is already abated. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not
filed the notice of motion to set aside the no argument order, the
plaintiff was required to file it. However, it is also required to be
considered that the order of no argument is the procedural part of the
proceeding. As the plaintiff remained absent and failed to proceed with
the chamber summons said order came to be passed. The contentions
made in the application are also required to be considered on merit.
Procedure is handmaid of justice and therefore, hypertechnical
approach is not expected therefore, the application is taken into
consideration.
-- 2 of 4 --
3 OBE 21 Suit 1531/18
5. The plaintiff has produced copy of order dated 16.12.2022 passed
by the Hon'ble High Court in Appeal From Order No. 433 of 2021. The
plaintiff is party in the said proceeding. It infers that the plaintiff was
before the Hon'ble High and therefore, was not able to attend the
proceeding before this Court. The chance of hearing in the proceeding
is substantial right of the plaintiff. On technical ground such right
cannot be denied. No irreparable loss will be caused to the defendants,
obstructionist if the opportunity of hearing, argument in chamber
summons is given to the plaintiff. Hence, I am of the view that the
order of no argument passed against the plaintiff in Chamber Summons
No.1017/2022 on 01.12.2022 needs to be set aside. In the result I pass
following order:
ORDER
1. Application Exh.21 is allowed.
2. Order of no argument passed against the plaintiff in Chamber
Summons No.1017/2022 on 01.12.2022 is set aside
(Rajesh A.Sasne)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mumbai.
Date : 04.02.2023
Dictated directly computer on : 04.02.2023
Typed on : 04.02.2023
Signed by HHJ on : 04.02.2023
-- 3 of 4 --
4 OBE 21 Suit 1531/18
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
08.02.2023 at 04.05 p.m. Mr. S.S. Bathe
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge(with CR No.) HHJ SHRI. R.A. SASNE (C.R.No.62)
Date of pronouncement of Order 04.02.2023
Order signed by P.O. on 04.02.2023
Order uploaded on 08.02.2023
-- 4 of 4 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.