Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 2545-19 in S.C. Suit no.7753-2000 1 Date : 22.09.2021
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2545 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.7753 OF 2000
(H.C. SUIT NO. 317 OF 2000)
(CNR NO.MHCC010070072019)
1. Gunwant Babulnath Dhairyawan
of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant,
age about 75 years, Occu : Retired
27, Kala Nagar, Bandra (East)
Mumbai 400 051.
2. Smt. Rekha Ravindra Vyavharkar (since deceased)
of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant,
age about 65 years, Occu : Retired
27, Kala Nagar, Bandra (East)
Mumbai 400 051. ...Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Vijay Babulnath Dhairyawan ... (Since deceased)
1a. Smt. Urmila V. Dhairyawan
Wd/o Vijay Babulnath Dhairyawan
of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant,
age about 65 years, Occu : Retired
27, Kala Nagar, Bandra (East)
Mumbai 400 051.
2. Shubhada Indersen Jayaker
of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant,
Age about 60 years,Occu : Retired
"Rohni", 21/B305, Apna Ghar,
Unit No.5 CHS Ltd., Swami Samarth
Nagar, Andheri (West),
Mumbai 400 053.
3. Smt. Janhavi Neel Kirtikar
-- 1 of 6 --
NM 2545-19 in S.C. Suit no.7753-2000 2 Date : 22.09.2021
of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant,
Age about 28 years, Occu : Service
As a Architect, residing at 21, Navi
Wadi, Dady seth Agiary Lane,
Mumbai 400 002. ...Defendants
Appearances :
Ld.Adv. Kantilal Kanojia for the plaintiffs.
None for the defendants.
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. A.H.Laddhad
Additional Judge
CR No. : 3
Date : 22/09/2021
ORDER
1. The plaintiffs filed instant Notice of Motion seeking the
following reliefs:
(a) That delay, if any, while taking out the present
Notice of Motion be condoned;
(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to review
and recall the impugned order dated 03.05.2019 passed by this
Hon'ble Court in Exhibit 63 and upon perusing the same and
considering the mistake or error apparent of the face of record, or
for any other sufficient reason, the same shall be quash and set
aside;
(c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of
this Notice of Motion for Review, all further proceeding in the suit
may be stayed;
(d) That adinterim relief may be granted in terms of
prayer clause (c) hereinabove;
(e) That such further and other reliefs as may be
required in the circumstances of the matter may be granted in
favour of the Plaintiff.
-- 2 of 6 --
NM 2545-19 in S.C. Suit no.7753-2000 3 Date : 22.09.2021
(f) For costs of this Motion may be provided for.
2. It is contended by the plaintiff that he is seeking review
of order dated 03/05/2019 passed below Exh. 63 by my
predecessor thereby it is held that the application Exh. 63 shall be
considered after cross examination of D.W. No.1 is over.
3. It is contended by plaintiff that, on 13/04/2015 his
evidence was closed and he has filed evidence of P.W.No.2.
Thereafter, the D.W.No.1a tendered her evidence. During cross
examination of the plaintiff the defendant's advocate has put
specific question whether he has receipts regarding payment of
property tax. He deposed that he has property tax receipts.
Therefore, on 26/09/2018 during cross examination he tried to
produce those property tax receipts on record but the court
directed him to file appropriate application for permission to file
those documents on record with copy to the other side.
4. It is contended that, on 13/11/2018 he has tendered
application below Exh. 63 to take on record the documents and to
mark them as Exhibit. However, the aforesaid application was not
allowed by the court directing that same will be considered after
cross examination of D.W. No. 1 is over. Therefore, it is contended
by the plaintiff that he felt there is error apparent on face of
record. Therefore, he preferred instant review application of order
dated 03/05/2019.
-- 3 of 6 --
NM 2545-19 in S.C. Suit no.7753-2000 4 Date : 22.09.2021
5. The Notice of Motion is opposed by the defendant
No. 1 by filing say. Heard learned advocate for the plaintiff.
Perused motion and impugned order. It is well settled law that the
scope of review is very limited only to the extent of correcting
error apparent on the face of record.
6. On perusal of application Exh. 63 it appears that
plaintiff was seeking to place certain documents on record and to
mark them as Exhibit. Those documents were photocopies.
Moreover, the documents which plaintiff wanted to confrrent was
not forming part of his list of documents nor he has tendered the
same before issues were framed. Therefore, my predecessor passed
such order.
7. The plaintiff merely pleaded that he felt there is some
error apparent on the face of record but he failed to describe such
error even in his pleading as well as during course of arguments.
Therefore, I am of the view the application is vague and cannot be
considered. Thus, I proceed the following order :
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 2545 of 2019 is dismissed with
cost.
2. Notice of Motion No. 2545 of 2019 stands disposed of
accordingly.
(A.H.Laddhad)
Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court,
Dated : 22.09.2021 Greater Bombay.
Dictated on : 22.09.2021
Transcribed on : 22.09.2021
Signed on : 23.09.2021
-- 4 of 6 --
NM 2545-19 in S.C. Suit no.7753-2000 5 Date : 22.09.2021
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
23.09.2021at 3.10 p.m. (Mrs. S.R.Mejari)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
Shri A.H.LADDHAD
(C.R. No.3)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
22.09.2021
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
23.09.2021
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 23.09.2021
-- 5 of 6 --
NM 2545-19 in S.C. Suit no.7753-2000 6 Date : 22.09.2021
-- 6 of 6 --