Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM No.2274/19 ..1.. Suit No.970/15
CNR No.MHCC010062762019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2274 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO.970 OF 2015
Vivek Vasudev Kamat .. Plaintiff
Versus
RNA Corp Private Limited. .. Defendant
Ms. Tejas Bhat, Advocate for plaintiff
Mr. Dipashri Raorane h/f Mr.Paresh Madkaikar, Advocate for
defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. U. J. MORE
(COURT ROOM NO.31)
DATE : 16th December, 2019
: ORDER :
1. The Notice of Motion accompanied by affidavit moved by the
defendant against “No Cross Order dated 22.02.2019” passed by
learned predecessor court against the defendant with prayer recall the
said order and set aside with permission to cross examine the plaintiff
witness. The one more prayer made in Notice of Motion to recall the
order of closing evidence of defendant by order dated 04.04.2019. The
application is accompanied by the affidavit, reply filed by the plaintiff.
2. It is stated that, no such written communications, nor the
responses of their earlier Advocate have been annexed by the
Defendant, thus exposing the hollowness of the Defendant's claim. I
state that if the Defendant now chooses to blame its earlier Advocate,
-- 1 of 5 --
NM No.2274/19 ..2.. Suit No.970/15
then it is pertinent to note that nowhere has the deponent averred that
they have taken any legal action against the “earlier Advocate” for the
socalled, alleged dereliction of duty.
3. Heard defendant learned Adv. Paresh Madkaikar, heard
learned Adv. Tejas Bhat for the plaintiff.
4. The suit filed for the recovery of amount. The roznama revels
on 22.02.2019 no cross order was passed against defendant. On
04.04.2019 defendant appear with the advocate no evidence order
order passed against the defendant. On 26.04.2019 defendant was
absent. On 03.06.2019 Adv. Dipashri Raorane was present on behalf of
the defendant. On 18.06.2019 Adv. Paresh Madkaikar for defendant
appear and filed this Notice of Motion accompanied with affidavit. The
seems substance of this application is that on 22.02.2019 the no cross
order was passed and the evidence was closed on 04.04.2019. On this
point learned Advocate of the defendant pithily submitted that the
earlier Advocate for the defendant company neither informed about the
no cross order nor about the necessity to filing evidence of defendant
company in the above suit. Therefore, these two orders dated
22.02.2019 and 04.04.2019 came to be passed in the above suit.
Defendant company bonafide the relied on assurance with their earlier
advocate and was completely defendant advocates view and assurance
that advocate still attend the court and look after the matter as
defendant was unaware of the legal procedure. This motion is
immediately filed with certain delay but which is not a deliberate.
5. On the other side plaintiff came with a case that defendant is
not authorized to affirm affidavit with Notice of Motion on this point
-- 2 of 5 --
NM No.2274/19 ..3.. Suit No.970/15
the rejoinder filed alongwith the copy of the certified copy of resolution
passed in favor of Mr. M.R.Ramchandran. It is stated by the defendant
Mr. Ramchandran that, it will authorized to deposed vide prayer
resolution on 01.06.2019 issued by defendant to technical plea and
objection cannot vitiate right of the defendant to the cross examination
to plaintiff witness.
6. I am on the opinion the resolution transpires that he is
authorized as a representative of the defendant. The delay on the part
of lawyer cannot be a ground to punish the defendant. Lack of
information or unawareness about the legal proceeding cannot vitiate
right of the defendant to cross examination on merits. Learned
Advocate for the plaintiff argued that this application is should be
allowed subject to heavy cost. It is settled position of law that both
parties shall decide conflicting issues on merit. Fair chance to cross
examination shall be given to parties in this particular suit all
circumstances in spite of closing evidence on 04.04.2019.
7. There is certain delay in file this Notice of Motion application
on 18.06.2019. I am of the opinion that this application needs to be
allowed to decide suit on merits by giving fair opportunity to both sides.
But subject to some cost. Accordingly I passed the order.
: ORDER :
1. Notice of Motion No.2274 of 2019 is prayed in clause (a) (b)
and (c) made absolute subject to cost of Rs.15000/ (Rs.
Fifteen thousand rupees only) to be paid to the plaintiff.
(Pronounced in Open Court)
-- 3 of 5 --
NM No.2274/19 ..4.. Suit No.970/15
(U.J.More)
AdHoc Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date :16/12/2019 Gr. Bombay
1. Dictated on : 16/12/2019
2. Transcribed on : 17/12/2019
3. HHJ signed on : 17/12/2019
-- 4 of 5 --
NM No.2274/19 ..5.. Suit No.970/15
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
18.12.2019, 11.00 a.m. Mr.G.R.Suryawanshi
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
H.H.J. Shri.U.J. More
C.R.No.31
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
16.12.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
17.12.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 18.12.2019
-- 5 of 5 --