Interim Order 2

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: MHCC010069802018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
ORDER BELOW EXH.11
IN
SUIT NO.136 of 2019
Rafiullah M.Q. Shaikh & Anr. Plaintiffs/Applicants.
V/s.
Mohammed Fahim Nasibullah Khan &
Ors.
Defendants.
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Zainab Shaikh for plaintiffs.
Ld. Adv. Gargi Bhagwati for the defendant no.2
CORAM : SHRI. ARVIND. M.
BHANDARWAR
JUDGE, CITY CIVL COURT
(C.R.NO.42)
DATE : 17/06/2026
ORDER
The plaintiffs have filed present review application seeking
review of the order dt.12/03/2026 passed below Exh.8.
2. It is submitted that the application is filed mainly on the ground
that there is a fundamental, factual error recorded in paragraph no.7 of
the order that affidavit of service was not filed on record, which is
contrary to the record of the above proceedings. Therefore, it is
submitted that it is an error apparent on the face of record. The
-- 1 of 4 --
Review application Exh.11 ..2.. In suit no.136/2019
application to take a written statement on record was allowed only on
that ground. Therefore, it is prayed that order dt.12/03/2026 passed
below Exh.8 in Suit No.136/2019 needs to be reviewed.
3. Ld. Advocate Gargi Bhagwati for the defendant no.2 submitted
that the order passed by this Court is proper and there is no error
apparent on the fact of record. Hence, prayed for rejection of the
application.
4. Heard both sides. Perused the record. Following points are
framed for determination, which are recorded and finding thereon for
the reasons as follows :-
Sr.
No.
Issues Findings
1. Whether grounds are made out to
review the order dt.12/03/2016 passed
below Exh.8 ?
No
2. What order ? Application
stands rejected
REASONS
5. Present application is being review application, it is for the
plaintiffs to show that there exists error apparent on the face of record.
As per submission of the plaintiff in para no.7 of the order, this Court
has recorded that affidavit of service is not filed and there is evidence to
show that affidavit of service filed on record. Considering the
submission made by the ld. Advocate for the plaintiffs, I have gone
through the order passed by this Court below Exh.8. This Court has
observed in para no.7 of the order while deciding the application Exh.8,
after going through the Rojnama, it revealed that the affidavit of service
was not filed on record. While deciding the application Exh.8, ld.
-- 2 of 4 --
Review application Exh.11 ..3.. In suit no.136/2019
Counsel for the plaintiffs has not pointed out that any such affidavit
was there on record. The affidavit of service shown to this court while
arguing the present application appears to be dated 15/06/2018.
However, record reflects that the present matter is registered at City
Civil Court, Mumbai on 17/01/2019 and first Rojnama is recorded on
15/02/2019. Therefore, there is no Rojnama about what had transpired
as on 15/06/2018 and there is nothing on record to show that plaintiffs
filed an affidavit of service on record.
6. That apart, the suit number in affidavit of service was shown to
be numbered as Suit no.7668/2018. There is no clarification in that
regard. Therefore, this Court is of the view that on the date of deciding
the application Exh.8 affidavit of service was not before the Court.
Hence, there is no apparent error on the fact of record.
7. Apart from that, it is to be noted that after amending the plaint
the copy of the plaint was supplied to the defendant no.2 and defendant
no.2 has every right to file written statement replying to that portion of
the plaint. However, the defendant no.2 is appearing in the matter since
beginning and it would not be in the interest of justice to deny the
opportunity to contents entire suit and permit to take defence for
limited portion of the plaint. Thus, from this point of view also
defendant no.2 has every right to defend the suit.
8. Thus, in view of the observations made above, this Court is of the
opinion that no grounds are made out to review the order
dt.12/03/2026 passed below Exh.8 in Suit no.136/2019. In the result to
answer point no.1 in the negative following order is passed -
-- 3 of 4 --
Review application Exh.11 ..4.. In suit no.136/2019
O R D E R
(i) Application (Exh.11) filed by the plaintiffs to review order
dt.12/03/2026 passed below Exh.8 in Suit no.136/2019 stands
rejected and disposed of accordingly.
(ii) The order is digitally signed; hence, it can be uploaded on Case
Information System (CIS) and the printout of the digitally signed
order, additionally signed by me, be kept on record as the
physical record is maintained by the Court.
Date : 17/06/2026 (Arvind. M. Bhandarwar)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Signed on 17/06/2026
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
17/06/2026 05:40 p.m. Kishor P. Sherwade
(Stenographer Grade-I)
Name of the Judge H.H.J. U. C. Deshmukh
Judge (C.R.No.43)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
17/06/2026
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 17/06/2026
Judgment/order uploaded on 17/06/2026
-- 4 of 4 --