Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: :1: N.M. No.2237/2018 in Suit No.5258/2007
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2237 OF 2018
CNR NO.: MHCC010072352018
IN
SUIT NO. 5258 OF 2007
(HIGH COURT SUIT NO.1848 OF 2007)
Kasturiben Amrutlal Kataria ...Plaintiff
Versus
Minaxi Mahesh Bhanushali and ors. ...Defendants.
Appearances:
Advocate Mr. Bhat for the plaintiff.
Advocate Mrs. Leena Temkar for defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 6.
CORAM : HER HONOUR ADHOC JUDGE
S.P. AGARWAL
(C.R.NO.14)
DATED : 29th JULY, 2019.
ORAL ORDER
1. Plaintiff has stated that on 10th April, 2018 plaintiff could not
come to the Hon'ble Court due to health problem. Applicant has further
stated that due to personal difficulty plaintiff could not travel to
Mumbai. Applicant has further stated that to avoid the trouble, plaintiff
has executed Power of Attorney in favour of applicant. Applicant has
further stated that the Affidavit of evidence and Compilation of
Documents are ready and applicant is willing to file it today. Plaintiff
has further stated that he is having very good case on merits and that he
will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of
-- 1 of 4 --
:2: N.M. No.2237/2018 in Suit No.5258/2007
money if the orders are not set aside.
2. Defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 have filed reply and stated that there
is no cause of action to file this suit and suit is bad for misjoinder of the
parties. They have further stated that plaintiff has sought relief in
respect of the suit premises against defendant No.1 and the defendant
Nos. 2, 4 and 5 have nothing to do with the said transactions and there
is no cause of action set out by plaintiff against defendant Nos. 2, 4 and
5. They have further stated that they are filing their reply for the limited
purpose of bringing to the notice of the Court the above facts and to
pass necessary order in favour of defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 deleting
their names from the suit and also the Notice of Motion filed by the
plaintiff.
3. Plaintiff has contended that he was having the health problem
and plaintiff could not travel, therefore, could not file evidence.
Applicant has stated that to avoid the trouble, Power of Attorney is
executed in favour of applicant and evidence is lead. Considering the
circumstances of the case that plaintiff has contending that if order is
not set aside he will suffer irreparable loss and the reason for not filing
evidence of bad health, it appears it will be in the interest of justice to
allow plaintiff to fight case on merits. But considering the circumstances
that matter was kept for evidence and evidence was not lead for many
dates, it will be proper to grant Notice of Motion subject to cost to be
given to defendant.
4. Defendants have prayed to delete their names from the suit in
reply to Notice of Motion. While deciding this Notice of Motion such
issue cannot be considered and decided therefore, it will be proper to
-- 2 of 4 --
:3: N.M. No.2237/2018 in Suit No.5258/2007
give liberty to defendants to file separate application about their
contentions of deleting their names. Hence, following order:
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.2237 of 2018 is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a) and (b), subject to cost of Rs. 2000/ to be given to
defendants by plaintiff.
2. Notice of Motion No.2237 of 2018 stands disposed of.
(S.P. AGARWAL)
Adhoc Judge,
Date: 29.07.2019. City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 29.07.2019
Transcribed on : 29.07.2019
Signed on : 29.07.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
:4: N.M. No.2237/2018 in Suit No.5258/2007
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
30.07.2019 At 1:16 p.m. Mr. Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Ms. S.P. Agarwal
(C.R.NO.14)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
29.07.2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 29.07.2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 30.07.2019
-- 4 of 4 --