Order 6

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: 1 OBE-33 IN CS 131 - 19
MHCC010083182019
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON, MUMBAI.
(Court Room No.32)
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT-33
IN
COMMERCIAL SUIT No.131 OF 2019
Sukanraj Kasturchandji Jain …Plaintiff
VERSUS
Shivaji Kishan Jhadav …Defendant
Yashpal Jain, ld. Advocate for plaintiff.
P. M. Purohit a/w M. D. Mali, ld. Advocate for defendant.
CORAM : H.H. JUDGE SHRI SANJIV PRABHAKAR PINGLE,
COURT ROOM NO.32,
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT-33
(Delivered on 27/03/2025)
1. The present application is taken out by the plaintiff for
discarding the affidavit of evidence tendered by the defendant on the
ground that as per amended Order XV-A Rule 2 (c) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) parties are required to file their respective
affidavits of evidence at once. However, being defendant failed to
tender the affidavit of evidence at once on the date when the plaintiff
tendered his affidavit. Hence, prayed to discard the affidavit of evidence
of the defendant.
-- 1 of 4 --
2 OBE-33 IN CS 131 - 19
2. Vide reply at Exhibit-34 the application is strongly resisted
being not maintainable in present form be as per the City Civil Rules
framed for the administration of the judicial business. Alternatively, it is
contended that the matter was fixed for framing of issues on
02.01.2025. On 09.01.2025, defendant filed application for accepting
the statement of truth of the defendant. Similarly, on that day the
matter was posted for hearing on the subject of Case Management
Hearing.
3. It is further contended that by order dated 13.01.2025 the
statement of truth tendered by the defendant came to be accepted
alongwith the costs of Rs.5,000/-. However, there is no Case
Management Hearing. Therefore, the affidavit of evidence tendered by
the defendant cannot be discarded. Hence, prayed to reject the
application.
4. Following points arises for my determination to which I
have noted my findings with reasons thereon to each one as under:-
SR.
NO.
ISSUES FINDINGS
1 Whether the present application is
maintainable as neither it is in the form of
Chamber Summons/Notice of Motion as per
the mandate of the City Civil Rule framed
for administration of the business of the
Bombay City Civil Court?
No
2 Whether the present application can be
entertained in present form? No
3 What Order? Application
rejected
-- 2 of 4 --
3 OBE-33 IN CS 131 - 19
REASONS
5. Heard, Both sides. By no stretch of imagination, it can be
said when, if at all any reliefs that too, adverse relief, is going to be
sought against either of the parties of the litigation/suit, whether the
mandate of the City Civil Rules framed for the purpose of transacting
the business of this Court can be overlooked ? If there requires either to
move a Notice of Motion or otherwise Chamber Summons. Answer can
be safely given, the present application at Exhibit-33 is not maintainable in
present form as not filed in the prescribed form. Therefore, I noted my
findings to the point No. 1 , 2 and 3 and accordingly, and proceed to
pass following order____
ORDER
1. The application is filed.
2. Plaintiff is at liberty to move if any, appropriate application. If he
really wants to prosecute the costs in accordance with the law.
. Matter to proceed further in accordance with the law.
(Dictated, delivered and pronounced in open Court)
( SANJIV PRABHAKAR PINGLE )
DISTRICT JUDGE, CR NO.32,
Date : 27/03/2025. CITY CIVIL COURT, AT MAZGAON,
MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 27.03.2025
Typed on : 27.03.2025
Signed on : 04.04.2025
-- 3 of 4 --
4 OBE-33 IN CS 131 - 19
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
04.04.2025 at 5.30 p.m. Mr. Mahesh S. Lugade
Name of the Judge ( With Court
Room No.)
H.H.J. Shri Sanjiv P. Pingle
(Court Room No.32)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
27.03.2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
04.04.2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 04.04.2025
-- 4 of 4 --