Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 196218 in SU 361413 : 1 : Dt. 11.06.2018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1962 OF 2018
CNR No. MHCC010064522018
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3981 OF 2013
LONG CAUSE SUIT NO. 3614 OF 2013
(CNR NO. MHCC010064882013 )
1. Vipul Arvind Mehta
2. Paresh Hemraj Pithadia
3. Hemang Shantilal Pandya
4. Bhavesh Himatlal Modi
5. Paresh Kaniyalal Mehta ...Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. Municipal Corporation Of Greater Bombay
2. The Assistant Commissioner NWard
3. The Assistant Engineer (Bldg. & Factory) ...Defendants
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. SANJASHREE J. GHARAT
(C.R. NO.08)
DATE : 11.06.2018.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Anand for Plaintiff.
Ld. Advocate Mr. Giri for BMC / Defendant.
ORAL ORDER
Perused Notice of Motion filed by Plaintiff.
2. The Defendant / Corporation filed reply to Notice of
Motion No. 1962 of 2018. Heard Plaintiff and defendant / BMC.
3. The present Notice of Motion filed by the plaintiff for
setting aside the order of dismissing the Notice of Motion No. 3981 of
2013. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that Notice of Motion
No. 3981 of 2013 was fixed for hearing on 21.04.2016. However due
-- 1 of 3 --
NM 196218 in SU 361413 : 2 : Dt. 11.06.2018
to genuine and sufficient cause, the advocate for plaintiff could not
remain present. Due to absence of plaintiff and his advocate, the Notice
of Motion came to be dismissed. The plaintiff prayed that the order of
dismissal be set aside and the said Notice of Motion be restored.
4. The defendant / BMC filed say and strongly resisted the
Notice of Motion. It is further submitted that ground mentioned for
restoration is not proper.
5. Heard both the parties.
6. I have gone through the roznama. After going through the
roznama it appears that, since 2013 the Notice of Motion was pending
for filing reply. The defendant / BMC filed reply on 02.09.2016. Since
then Notice of Motion was pending for hearing. Due to the continuous
absence and failure to proceed with hearing of Notice of Motion my
learned predecessor dismissed the Notice of Motion. Therefore the
Notice of Motion not dismissed due to absence only on the particular
day. However, the earlier Notice of Motion was filed for adinterim
relief. It is advisable to decide the matter on merit instead of disposing
on technical grounds. Therefore prayer made by plaintiff for restoration
of Notice of Motion needs to be allowed. However considering the
delay caused to proceed with Notice of Motion hearing, it is necessary
to saddle some cost to the plaintiff. Hence, following Order is passed :
ORDER
1. The order of dismissal of Notice of Motion No. 3981
of 2013 is hereby set aside.
2. The Notice of Motion No. 3981 of 2013 be restored
-- 2 of 3 --
NM 196218 in SU 361413 : 3 : Dt. 11.06.2018
to file subject to cost of Rs. 2,000/.
3. The plaintiff is directed to deposit the cost to the Legal
Services Authority within two weeks from the date of
order.
4. The plaintiff is hereby directed to proceed with Notice of
Motion on next day without fail.
(Sanjashree J. Gharat )
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Mumbai.
Date : 11.06.2018.
Typed on : 11.06.2018.
Signed on : 12.06.2018.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
13.06.2018 at 3.35p.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
11.06.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
12.06.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 13.06.2018
-- 3 of 3 --