Interim Order 7

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 18
21.12.2024 Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court, Mumbai
Coram : Shri V. S. Hingne, Additional District Judge,
Sr. No.33
Commercial
Suit No.
100072/2019
Exh.45
Anil Vishanji Dedhia Vs M/s. Klaus Waren Fixtures Pvt.
Adv. Preeti Gada present for plaintiff.
Adv. Prashansa Agrawal present for defendant.
Exh.45- Affidavit in reply to Exh.43 filed by plaintiff.
Heard both sides on application at Exh.43 and Exh.44.
Order below Exh. 43 and Exh. 44
Perused Record.
Heard Learned Counsels.
Through aforesaid applications, defendant wants to reopen
oral and documentary evidence.
Applications are under strong objection by plaintiff.
Perusal shows that, on 08.08.2024, during cross-
examination of PW1 Jayesh Soni, defendant confronted said
witness with Form DIR-11 from Ministry of Corporate
Affairs. Accordingly, said Form was taken on record as
Exh. 40.
After cross-examination of said witness, plaintiff filed
evidence closure pursis (Exh. 41, Dt. 08.08.2024).
Thereafter, immediately on next date i.e. 30.08.2024,
defendant filed evidence closure pursis (Exh. 42), declining
to lead oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, Suit
was adjourned for final arguments.
On 28.11.2024, plaintiff filed application at Exh. 43 for
reopening of the evidence, on ground that, they want to file
certified copy of Exh. 40.
Through Exh. 44, defendant prayed for issuance of
-- 1 of 3 --
18
summons to the authorized Officer of the Registrar of
Companies, who are maintaining Form DIR-11 i.e. Ministry
of Corporate Affairs.
Both applications are under strong objection by plaintiff.
If any party, for technical reasons, is deprived of raising its
case, then it may result in improper adjudication. That may
lead to complexity in the dispute and may also lead to
multiplicity of litigation. If that happens, then it drags the
parties into further litigation, causing serious prejudices to
them. Hence, it is always in the interest of justice that, both
contesting parties are provided sufficient opportunities to
raise their contentions and to prove their case.
As defendant has confronted document at Exh. 40, then in
that circumstances, defendant is permitted to lead
documentary evidence regarding Exh. 40.
As far as application at Exh. 44 is concerned, as permission
is granted to defendant to lead documentary evidence
regarding Exh. 40 in nature of certified copy, then it is
unnecessary to call public servant to prove said document.
Therefore, Exh. 44 cannot be considered.
Considering above factors, following Order is passed :
ORDER
1. Exh. 43 is allowed and defendant is permitted to
lead documentary evidence regarding Exh. 40.
2. Exh. 44 stands rejected.
3. Parties to act accordingly.
4. This order be uploaded in PDF format, forthwith,
on the website of the Court.
Perused pleading of the parties.
-- 2 of 3 --
18
Parties to argue regarding maintainability of the Suit in
view of Sec. 2 ( 1) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act.
Parties to e-file their respective pleadings, Interim
Applications (Chamber Summons, Notice of Motions,
Summons for Judgment, replies, joinder, rejoinders, etc.),
Written arguments, documents in OCR compatibility.
Suit adjourned to 22.01.2025 for argument.
Judge
-- 3 of 3 --