Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM No.3288-2019 1 S.C. Suit No.560-2012
MHCC010089472019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3288 of 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 560 OF 2012
Smt. Manisha Ramesh Pevekar ] ...Applicant.
In the matter between:-
Smt. Manisha Ramesh Pevekar ] ...Plaintiff.
Versus
Ramesh Babu Pevekar & Others ]…Defendants.
Appearance:
Mr. Sachin Chindarkar for Plaintiff.
Ms. Prachi Mane for Defendant No.1.
Ms. Janhavi Kandekar h/f. Adv. Kandekar present for Defendant/MHADA.
CORAM : V.G. RAGHUWANSHI
JUDGE, (C.R.NO.08)
DATE : 24/11/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Plaintiff Manisha Pevekar brought this notice of motion for calling
original record from the office of defendant No.2 MHADA, calling
handwriting expert for verification of alleged signature of her
deceased husband. She submits that defendant No.1 is her brother
in law. She was married to Sanjay Pevekar on 18/12/1993 and after
-- 1 of 5 --
NM No.3288-2019 2 S.C. Suit No.560-2012
her marriage, she started residing with her husband and his mother
in chawl No.397, room no.4626, Tagore Nagar, Group No.A/5,
Vikhroli East, Mumbai- 400 088 (hereinafter mentioned as suit
property). Suit premises was in name of her mother in law Smt.
Janki Babu Pevekar. Janki passed away on 08/08/2006 and
thereafter, plaintiff’s husband passed away on 07/02/2008. Suit
property was in name of Smt. Janki and plaintiff’s husband.
2. Plaintiff submits that after death of her mother in law, defendant
No.1 who was elder brother of plaintiff’s husband started harassing
her husband to compel him to transfer suit premises in his name.
But, plaintiff’s husband never conceded to his demands. After death
of her husband, the defendant No.1 started quarreling with plaintiff
and drew her out of suit premises. He constrained her to stay in a
small room constructed six years ago. Defendant No.1 started
demanding rent from her. He was harassing her.
3. Plaintiff was suspecting foul play by defendant No.1, therefore, she
applied to defendant No.2 MHADA under Right to Information Act
on 08/10/2010. MHADA issued certified copies of alleged affidavit
and an application filed by defendant No.1 for transferring suit
premises to his name. She suspects that signature on alleged
affidavit dated 12/12/2006 was not made by her husband, it is
forged and bogus. Defendant No.1 filed an application before
defendant No.2 and attached, affidavit allegedly sworn by her
deceased husband relinquishing his share in suit property, to his
application. She alleges that her husband never intended to transfer
suit property to defendant No.1 and the signature on alleged
affidavit was not similar to the signature of her husband and
-- 2 of 5 --
NM No.3288-2019 3 S.C. Suit No.560-2012
progress report of her children. She lodged report with these
allegations in the police station, but no action was taken against
defendant No.1. She also complained to MHADA but MHADA did
not take any action. She applied to MHADA to cancel mutation of
name of defendant No.1. Her husband told her before his death that
defendant No.1 has done something wrong to grab suit premises.
She is well acquainted with signature of her husband. Original
documents of suit premises are in possession of defendant No.2.
Therefore, it is necessary to call original record of defendant No.2
and call handwriting expert for verification of alleged signature of
husband of plaintiff.
4. Defendant No.1 opposed this application by filing his reply. He
submits that the suit is false and filed with intention to harass him.
Plaintiff filed one more L.C. suit No.2992/2015. It is pending before
court No.11. But, she denied in her cross examination that she filed
any other suit in city civil court. The plaintiff intends to grab suit
property owned by defendant No.1. She is residing in a separate
room for more than 20 years. This application is filed to prolong the
matter. He prayed for rejecting the notice of motion.
5. I have perused notes of arguments submitted by both sides. Plaintiff
alleges that defendant No.1 fabricated an affidavit of her late
husband and got the suit premises transferred to his name. She
desires to prove her contentions by calling original record and
handwriting expert. I am of considered opinion that parties should
be given fair and reasonable opportunity to lead evidence and prove
their contentions. Plaintiff submits that she is not having custody of
application filed by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2 and alleged
-- 3 of 5 --
NM No.3288-2019 4 S.C. Suit No.560-2012
affidavit of her deceased husband. Therefore, she can pray that said
record should be called before court, so that its authenticity can be
verified. So far as plaintiff’s prayer for calling handwriting expert is
concerned this court will not call handwriting expert but she may
bring handwriting expert of her own choice after the record is
received from defendant No.2. This court will extend opportunity to
the handwriting expert to check and obtain photographs of alleged
signatures on the affidavit in question. Plaintiff will have to bear
charges of handwriting expert. With this I pass following order:-
ORDER
1) Notice of Motion No.3288/2019 is partly allowed.
2) Call record from office of defendant No.2 containing application
filed by defendant No.1 and affidavit allegedly sworn by deceased
husband of plaintiff.
3) Plaintiff may call handwriting expert of her choice.
4) Notice of motion No.3288/2019 is disposed off accordingly.
Date : 24/11/2023.
(Shri. V.G. Raghuwanshi)
Judge
City Civil Court,
Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated & directly typed on computer: 24/11/2023.
Signed on : 30/11/2023.
-- 4 of 5 --
NM No.3288-2019 5 S.C. Suit No.560-2012
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
01/12/2023 Mrs. S.A. Shekade.
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
SHRI V.G. Raghuwanshi (Court Room
No.08)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
24/11/2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
30/11/2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 01/12/2023
-- 5 of 5 --