Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: NM No.218919 in Suit No.352610
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2189 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO.3526 OF 2010
Arun Kumar & Others ….Plaintiffs
Versus
Akhtar Quereshi & Others ….Defendants
Appearance:
Shri. Shishir Joshi, Advocate for plaintiff.
CORUM : SMT. S.S. NAGUR,
AD HOC JUDGE &
ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
(C.R.NO.13)
DATE : 22/10/2019
ORAL ORDER
1) The Notice of Motion is filed under Order 39 Rule
2A against defendant for disobedience of interim order under
Order 39 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure.
2) Advocate Shri. Joshi for plaintiff has drawn my
attention to the earlier orders passed by Hon'ble High Court in
Notice of Motion for temporary injunction and the Notice of
Motion by defendant u/s.9A, the appeal filed against the order of
Notice of Motion u/s. 9A in respect of jurisdiction. Advocate Shri.
Joshi for plaintiff argued that it is not necessary to issue notice of
this Notice of Motion to the defendant to give him opportunity to
say about the statements in the Notice of Motion about the
...1/
-- 1 of 4 --
NM No.218919 2 in Suit No.352610
disobedience of order of injunction.
3) Advocate Shri. Joshi for plaintiff has drawn my
attention to para No.26 of judgment and appeal from order
No.466/16 dated 12/07/2017 of Hon'ble High Court that,
“Mr. Sathaye submits that now he must be at liberty to
argue the Motion again. I do not think this remotely
correct. The defendants cannot constantly get second, third
and fourth bites at the cherry like this. The matter was
argued at the adinterim stage. It was then argued at the
interim stage before Dharmadhikari J. It was argued in
Appeal. It was argued in Appeal. It was argued under CPC
Section 9A issue. Now the defendants have failed, they
cannot be allowed to argue that the plaintiffs should have
to reestablish a prima facie case.”
The said observation of the Hon'ble High Court is in
respect of the submission of Advocate Shri. Sathaye for defendant
to give them liberty to argue the motion of interim injunction.
4) The present Notice of Motion is filed against the
defendant for disobedience of the order of injunction by the
defendants. The plaintiff is seeking relief of warrant of arrest and
attachment of the defendant's properties. The Advocate for
plaintiff has drawn my attention to para 7 and 22 of the written
statement to show that the defendants have admitted that they
are going to the suit premises even though they are restrained in
the interim injunction order.
5) The plaintiff is seeking relief of warrant of
attachment and warrant of arrest of defendants without notice to
the defendants and giving opportunity to the defendant to say.
Even under Order 21 Rule 37 and 38 of Code of Civil Procedure
which provides for arrest of attachment letter in respect of
...2/
-- 2 of 4 --
NM No.218919 3 in Suit No.352610
movable property. The notice to the defendants is necessary
before warrant of arrest. In the interest of justice requires that the
defendant should be heard before passing order on warrant of
arrest and warrant of attachment. Hence, issue notice of the
Notice of Motion to the defendants.
(S.S. Nagur)
Date : 22/10/2019 AdHoc Judge &
Asst. Sessions Judge,
City Civil Court,
Greater Mumbai.
Dictated on : 22/10/2019
Transcribed on : 02/11/2019
Signed on : 02/11/2019
...3/
-- 3 of 4 --
NM No.218919 4 in Suit No.352610
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT, COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
DATE & TIME OF UPLOADING : NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
13.11.2019 & 4.27 p.m. : Mrs. S.A. Shekade (Grade I)
Name of the Judge (with Court no.) : HHJ Smt. S.S. Nagur
(CR no. 13)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/ : 22.10.2019
Order
Judgment/Order signed by the P.O. on : 02.11.2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on : 13.11.2019
...4/
-- 4 of 4 --