Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1024 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO.3392 OF 2008
(HIGH COURT SUIT NO.606 OF 2008)
Shree Durgamata Premises Coop. Soc.
Ltd. & Ors. ...Plaintiffs.
V/s.
Mr.Nandu Tarachand Jain & Ors. ...Defendants.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv Mr.Jayesh Bhatt for plaintiff.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI ABHIJEET A.
NANDGAONKAR
(C.R.No.20)
DATED : 01st February,2019
ORDER
By way of this chamber summons plaintiff cooperative society
prayed to make discovery on oath and give inspection of the documents.
2. In supporting affidavit to this chamber summons of Mr.Subhash
Bholanath Baug, plaintiff No.25 submitted that, society has filed this
suit for specific performance of agreement with defendant Nos.1 to 6
for conveying the suit property to them for Rs.42 Lakhs. Plaintiff
society have already paid Rs.21 Lakhs and they are still ready and
willing to pay the balance amount. In the alternative, plaintiff prayed
that Conveyance Deed dt.09.02.2007 be adjudged as void and
defendant No.7 may be ordered to execute conveyance of the suit
property against payment of Rs.21 Lakhs to defendant Nos.1 to 6.
MHCC01-007374-2018
-- 1 of 5 --
CS 1024/2018 .. 2 .. Suit No.3392/2008
3. In this factual position plaintiff submitted that, adinterim
application which is pending for hearing in view of the Notice of
Mention No.2268 of 2018 and for hearing came to the knowledge that,
defendant Nos.1 to 6 and their family members by conspiring they
collected Rs.21 Lakhs from plaintiff society as part payment for sale of
suit property to plaintiffs, but not complied their liability with ulterior
motive. On 27.04.2011 the letter address to the Advocate for defendant
Nos.5 and 6 about fixing date of inspection of the documents, which
was not complied and therefore, plaintiff society when learnt that there
is some alleged agreement to sell the suit property to one Prashant
Agarwal, as referred in letter dt.23.02.2005 of Mr.Chandrakant C.
Merchant to the tenants/occupants of suit building. It is necessary for
applicant/society to have inspect all the same along with entire
conveyance deed dt.09.02.2007 in favour of Prashant Agarwal with all
enclosures with passbooks, all the statement of accounts of Canara
Brank in respect of that consideration of conveyance dt.09.02.2007 for
inspection. So as to matter can be heard properly. Therefore, plaintiff
prayed that, chamber summons be made absolute to make discovery on
oath and give inspection of the documents, as listed in the chamber
summons.
4. Chamber Summons was served upon defendants. However, they
did not take pain to appear for best reasons known to them.
5. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Jayesh Bhatt for plaintiff at length.
Perused the submissions and record.
6. In the letter dt.19.05.2011 addressed by learned Advocate
Mr.Khan Javed Akhtar to learned Advocate Jayesh Bhatta has
-- 2 of 5 --
CS 1024/2018 .. 3 .. Suit No.3392/2008
specifically been averred that, for inspection of the documents relied by
their client, the copies was placed along with written statement and
annexed. He require specific inspection of documents, kindly mention
the same and he will get appropriate instructions from his clients.
Therefore, on 08.06.2011 letter was addressed in respect of the
documents to be inspected by learned counsel for plaintiff Advocate
Jayesh Bhatt, which was not complied. Which forced this plaintiff to
file this chamber summons. Therefore, considering the nature of the
suit, dispute between the parties, alleged transaction took place and on
perusal of the O.XI R.3 of C.P.C that, all parties shall complete
inspection all the documents disclosed within 30 days of the date of
filing of written statement or written statement to the counter claim,
whichever is later. The court may extend this time limit. Therefore,
when in the notice there is specifically mentioned that they are ready to
give inspection and therefore, specific notice was issued on 08.06.2011.
But there is no response to it.
7. In such circumstances, the chamber summons needs to be made
absolute directing defendant Nos.5 an 6 to give all disclosures on oath
and inspection of the documents as mentioned in chamber summons
and in the notice dt.08.06.2011 to the learned counsel for plaintiff.
Noncompliance this Court will issue necessary directions under O.XI
R.3 of C.P.C. against defendant Nos.5 and 6. Compliance be reported
within five days. In such circumstances parties are directed to bear
their costs and hence, I proceed to pass the following order :
O R D E R
1. Chamber Summons No.1024 of 2018 in Suit No.3392 of
2008 (High Court Suit No.606 of 2008) is made absolute.
2. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 are directed to make discovery on
-- 3 of 5 --
CS 1024/2018 .. 4 .. Suit No.3392/2008
oath and give inspections of the documents as mentioned
in chamber summons clause Nos.(i), (ii) and (iii), to the
learned counsel of plaintiff.
3. Noncompliance of the above order will invoke the power
for necessary directions under O.XI R.3 (6) of C.P.C.
against defendant Nos5 and 6.
4. Compliance be reported within five days in view of R.XI
R.3(4) of C.P.C.
5. Parties to bear their costs.
( ABHIJEET A. NANDGAONKAR )
Judge, (C.R.No.20)
Dt.: 01/02/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 01.02.2019
Transcribed on : 02.02.2019
Signed on : 05.02.2019
-- 4 of 5 --
CS 1024/2018 .. 5 .. Suit No.3392/2008
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
05.02.2019 at 1.44 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(KISHOR PRAKASH SHERWADE)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI A.A.
NANDGAONKAR
(COURT ROOM NO.20)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order 01.02.2019
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 05.02.2019
Judgment/order uploaded on 05.02.2019
-- 5 of 5 --