Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: MHCC010093272019
CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3418 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.9966 OF 1988
(HIGH COURT SUIT NO.801 OF 1988)
M/S. Radiant Plastics (registered). ] … Plaintiff
V/s.
The State Trading Corporation ]
of India Ltd & Anr. ] ... Defendants
Appearances :-
Mr. Ganesh Lambade, Ld. Adv. for plaintiff.
Mr. Ashish Kanojiya, Ld. Adv. for defendant No.1.
Mr. V.B. Tiwari, Ld. Adv. for defendant No.2.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI SHANKAR G.
BORLEPWAR
(C.R.No.20)
DATED : 28th February, 2020
ORAL ORDER
1. Defendant No.2 took out this Notice of Motion to recall
plaintiff's witness i.e. P.W.1 for further cross examination and to permit
defendant No.2 to take further cross-examination of P.W.1.
MHCC01-009327-2019
-- 1 of 5 --
- 2 - NM 3418/19 in
SC Suit 9966/88
2. Perused the Notice of Motion and reply of plaintiff. Heard
both sides.
3. Following points arise for my determination. I record my
findings thereon for the reasons mentioned below:
Sr. No. POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether PW 1 can be recalled for
further cross examination ?
In the negative.
2. Whether defendant No.2 can be
permitted to take further cross
examination of PW 1 ?
In the negative.
3 What Order ? Notice of motion is
rejected as per final
order.
REASONS
As to point Nos.1 to 3.
4. In brief, it is contention of defendant No.2 that cross
examination of PW 1 was conducted on 4.1.2018 by the advocate
appearing for the defendant No.2. The present status of the suit is
being at advanced developed stage, and therefore, again cross
examination of the plaintiff becomes necessary.
5. In brief, it is contention of the plaintiff that the Notice of
Motion is not maintainable. All the other adverse contentions are
denied. The defendant No.2 has not mentioned the important fact that
earlier exparte decree is passed by this Court as the defendant No.2
-- 2 of 5 --
- 3 - NM 3418/19 in
SC Suit 9966/88
inspite of several opportunities failed to appear in the Court. Therefore,
ultimately decree came to be passed which subsequently set aside and
afresh trial is conducted. Defendant No.2 is merely delaying the
proceeding. Defendant No.2 has no defence on merit. Filing of the
Notice of Motion is one more attempt to delay the proceeding.
Therefore, Notice of Motion be dismissed with compensatory costs.
6. Perused record. Perused examination in chief of PW 1
Vinay Rana. It appears from the record that cross examination of PW 1
by defendant No.1 is completed on 15.12.2017. It further appears that
cross examination of PW 1 by defendant No.2 through advocate is
completed on 4.1.2018.
7. Nothing is mentioned in the Notice of Motion, affidavit in
support of Notice of Motion on which ground defendant No.2 wants to
take further cross examination of PW 1.
8. The Learned Advocate appearing for defendant No.2
submits that in view of Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, PW 1 be recalled and defendant No.2 be permitted to
take further cross examination. I have gone through Order XVIII Rule
17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It states that the Court may at any
stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may
(subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such
questions to him as the Court thinks fit. It means the said provision
empowers Court to recall any witness who has been examined to put
such question to such witness as the Court think fit at any stage of the
-- 3 of 5 --
- 4 - NM 3418/19 in
SC Suit 9966/88
suit. I am of the considered view that no satisfactory and convincing
grounds are mentioned in the Notice of Motion to recall the said
witness for further cross examination. As to why specific grounds for
recalling PW 1 is not mentioned in the Notice of Motion is best known
to the defendant No.2. Therefore, there is no substance in the Notice of
Motion. It is liable to be rejected. Hence, I record my findings to point
Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and point No.3 the Notice of Motion is
rejected as per final order. Hence following order:
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.3418 of 2019 is rejected.
2. Costs in cause.
( SHANKAR G. BORLEPWAR )
Judge, (C.R.No.20)
Dt.: 28/02/2020 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
Dictated on : 28/02/2020.
Transcribed on : 02/03/2020.
Signed on : 09/03/2020.
( SHANKAR G. BORLEPWAR )
Judge, (C.R.No.20)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 4 of 5 --
- 5 - NM 3418/19 in
SC Suit 9966/88
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
11.03.2020 at 12.16 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(VARSHA U. PAWAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI S. G.
BORLEPWAR
(COURT ROOM NO.20)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order 28.02.2020
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 09.03.2020
Judgment/order uploaded on 11.03.2020
-- 5 of 5 --