Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT FORT GREATER BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1871 OF 2018
IN
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.7664 OF 2002
(HIGH COURT SUIT NO. 1707 OF 2002)
Unicorn Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd. .. .. Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Universal Cosmetics & Anr. .. .. Defendants
Advocate for the Plaintiff present.
Mr. Hemand Dandekar Advocate for the Defendant no.1.
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. G. O. Agrawal
CR no. : 13
Dated : 30.6.2018
Oral Order:
The defendant no.1 company has moved this notice
of motion for setting aside no cross examination order dated
12.2.2018. Perused notice of motion and affidavit in support
thereof. Heard learned Counsel for the defendant no.1 and
plaintiff. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has strongly
opposed the notice of motion.
2. Learned Counsel for the defendant no.1 has urged
that on 12.2.2018 learned Counsel for the defendant no.1
could not come to the court on time. He was under
impression that the suit was kept back. The suit was,
however, already adjourned to 28.2.2018. On 28.2.2018
-- 1 of 4 --
2
learned Counsel for the defendant no.1 was not present and
the matter was adjourned to 5.3.2018 for recording of
evidence. On 5.3.2018 learned Counsel for the defendant
no.1 came to know about the no cross examination by the
defendant no.1. He immediately took out present notice of
motion. The notice of motion is within a period of limitation.
For the fault of the Counsel, defendant no. 1 should not
suffer. The notion of motion be allowed and the defendant
no.1 be permitted to cross examine the plaintiff's witness.
3. Of course, the no cross order is detrimental to the
case of the defendant no.1. The suit is of the year 2002. The
plaintiff filed its affidavit of evidence on 10th November
2017. It is a settled proposition of law that no one should be
condemned unheard. Roznama shows that the defendant
no.1 is regularly attending the matter. It transpires that the
notice of motion is pending for hearing since long. The
plaintiff has not filed any reply till date. The issues have
been settled. Evidence have been tendered. The suit is for
recovery of huge amount. The transactions are based on bills
and invoices. The defendant no.1 is ready to cross examine
the plaintiff's witness. In order to afford fair opportunity, it
would, therefore, be just and proper to allow the defendant
no.1 to conduct cross examination. The inconvenience caused
to the plaintiff can be compensated by awarding some costs
upon the defendant no.1.
In the result, following order is passed :
-- 2 of 4 --
3
ORDER
1. The Notice of Motion no. 1871 of 2018 is allowed with
costs.
2. No cross order dated 12.2.2018 is recalled.
3. The defendant no.1 is allowed to cross examine the
plaintiff's witness subject to payment of Rs.500/ to the
plaintiff by the defendant no.1.
4. The plaintiff's witness to afford himself for the cross
examination to the defendant no.1.
Dated : 30.6.2018 (G. O. Agrawal)
Judge
City Civil Court
Gr. Mumbai
-- 3 of 4 --
4
(As per office circular no.25 of 2016 and 20 of 2016, dated 20.12.2016 issued by IC Registrar)
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT, COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
DATE & TIME OF UPLOADING NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : BHARATKUMAR NUKTE
30.6.2018 5.30 pm
Name of Steno with Post. : Bharatkumar Nukte, Stenographer (HG)
Name of the Judge (with Court no.) : HHJ Shri. G. O. Agrawal (CR no. 13)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 30.6.2018
Judgment signed by the P.O. on : 30.6.2018
Judgment uploaded on : 30.6.2018
-- 4 of 4 --