Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2560 OF 2019
IN
S.C.SUIT NO.4418 OF 2008
Suresh Mohanlal Jain .... Plaintiff
V/s
1. M/s. J.R. Properties & ors. .....Defendants
APPEARANCE:
Advocate M.A.Dudhane for plaintiff.
Advocate for defendant absent.
CORAM : H. H. ADHOC JUDGE
SHRI MILIND A. BHOSALE
(COURT ROOM NO. 32)
DATE : 03rd October, 2019
ORDER
Perused contention in Notice of Motion @ Affidavit.
It is submitted by the plaintiff that he had filed suit for
declaration and injunction against defendant. It is further submitted
that the plaintiff had filed affidavit in examination in chief by way of
affidavit @ 25 documents. However, Court was passed an order below
Exh5 and directing plaintiff to impounding documents at Sr.No.6. It is
further submitted that the matter is kept for taking steps. However, in
the light of evidence document ought to have been marked Articles for
identification or be marked either exhibited documents as to proceed to
proving the same after the plaintiff undergoes to the cross examination.
The present Notice of Motion is pending in the court but plaintiff
has not taken any steps to execute writ of summons to the defendant.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Moreover, advocate for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is not
cooperate to her and therefore, she had issued notice to the plaintiff
intimating him to withdraw vakalatnama on behalf of him. As per the
submission of Ld.Counsel for plaintiff dated 04.09.2019 matter is
adjourned and fixed for today's board for further steps and argument.
But plaintiff filed withdrawal of vakalatnama pursis therefore, I have
decided this Notice of Motion without argument.
I have perused entire record in Suit No.4418 of 2008 and suit is
proceeded exparte against defendant. After passing exparte order
against defendant plaintiff had filed affidavit in lieu of evidence @ list
of document. While deciding relevancy and admissibility of document
vide Exh5. My Ld. Predecessor found that the documents at Sr.No.6
needs to be impounded and therefore, she directed to the plaintiff to
take necessary steps for impounding document at Sr.No.6. However, the
plaintiff has failed to take steps to comply the order passed by my Ld.
Predecessor dated 11.03.2019 below Exh.5. She prayed by way of
Notice of Motion that the same document be marked as article number
or exhibit number. As per the procedure it is true plaintiff has to prove
the admissibility and relevancy of the documents by way of further
examination in chief. But prima facie my Ld. Predecessor found that
document dated 28.12.1993 needs to be impounding if the plaintiff has
dissatisfied with the order below Exh5. He has remedy to challenge
the same before Hon'ble appropriate Court. Instead challenging the
order plaintiff wants to exhibit the said document ignoring the order
below Exh5. This Court is not sitting as Appellate authority and
therefore, I found there is no merit in the Notice of Motion. In the above
said reason I come to the conclusion that plaintiff has to take necessary
steps as per the order below Exh5. Under such circumstances there is
-- 2 of 3 --
3
no any other alternative in the hands of Court except to pass following
order
ORDER
Notice of Motion No. 2560 of 2019 is dismissed with cost.
Date:03/10/2019 (Milind A.Bhosale)
AdHoc Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr.Bombay
Dictated on : 03/10/2019
Typed on :03/10/2019
H.H.J.Signed on :03/10/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
03.10.2019 at 12.20 p.m. (Mrs.P.P.Khanvilkar)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room no.) SHRI M.A.BHOSALE
(C.R. NO.32)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/
ORDER
03.10.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 03.10.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 03.10.2019
-- 3 of 3 --