Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 163218 in SU 48718 : 1 : Dt. : 02.05.2018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1632 OF 2018
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 487 OF 2018
Atmaram Baburao Aglave ...Plaintiff
Versus
1. The Provident Employee Ltd. Co.
2. Vikram Thakor ...Defendants
Adv. Mr. Upadhyay for Plaintiff present.
None present for Defendants.
CORAM : HHJ DR (SMT.) SRISHTY NEELKANTH
(C.R. NO.02)
DATED : 2nd MAY, 2018.
ORDER
This Notice of Motion has been filed by the Plaintiff for an
order of temporary injunction directing the defendant not to obstruct or
restraining the entrance and exit of the plaintiff from the suit premises.
2. The learned advocate of the Plaintiff filed affidavit of
service. The Notice of Motion was duly served upon the defendant
no. 1. None appeared for defendant no. 1.
3. The learned advocate for the Plaintiff submitted that he
was not seeking any directions against defendant no. 2 but was seeking
relief only against defendant no. 1.
4. The case of the Plaintiff is that he was working with
defendant no. 1 which was a registered Company and was in possession
of the suit premises. The suit premises was originally acquired by his
-- 1 of 3 --
NM 163218 in SU 48718 : 2 : Dt. : 02.05.2018
father. He relied on the copy of Ration Card, Voter ID Card, PAN Card,
Aadhar Card, Passport, School Leaving Certificate to show that all the
documents were bearing the address of the suit premises.
5. After the death of plaintiff, his mother joined the services of
defendant no. 1 in place of his father. In the year 2000, when his
mother was paralyzed the plaintiff started working with defendant no. 1
in the same terms and conditions and the plaintiff got a confirmed job
in defendant no. 1 as a Peon. The defendant no. 1 had started
harassing the plaintiff to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit premises
and to remove him from the job. He further says that the suit premises
was not let out to him, as a consequence of his employment with
defendant no. 1. He thus prayed that as the plaintiff was in possession
of the suit premises, the present Notice of Motion should be allowed
and the defendant no. 1 should be prevented from dispossessing him
from the suit premises.
6. Heard advocate of Plaintiff. Perused the roznama and
documents on record.
7. It is observed that on the one hand it is the case of the
plaintiff that his father, thereafter his mother and after the demise of his
mother he himself was in employment of defendant no. 1. The
defendant no. 1 was the owner of the suit premises. On the other hand,
he also contends that the suit premises was not given to him or his
father due to the reason that his father and later he himself were in
employment of defendant no. 1. On being questioned, he was not able
-- 2 of 3 --
NM 163218 in SU 48718 : 3 : Dt. : 02.05.2018
to prove that he was presently in employment of defendant no. 1. No
latest document showing his valid and legal possession of the suit
premises are produced by him. Primafacie, the plaintiff has not been
able to prove his case. He is not able to show whether he was still in
service of defendant no. 1. The suit premises appears to be a service
tenement, which the plaintiff denies. Thus, as the plaintiff has not been
able to prove his case, at this stage, no reliefs can be granted to him.
Thus, for the above stated reasons, following Order is passed :
ORDER
Notice of Motion No. 1632 of 2018 is dismissed.
(Dr. Srishty Neelkanth)
Judge
City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Date : 02.05.2018.
Dictated on : 02.05.2018.
Transcribed on : 02.05.2018.
Signed on : 02.05.2018.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
03.05.2018 at 2.05 p.m. (Y.M. SAKHARKAR)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
DR(SMT) SRISHTY NEELKANTH
(C.R. No.02)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/
ORDER
02.05.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 02.05.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 03.05.2018
-- 3 of 3 --