Date: 10-10-2019
Business: Court is vacant.
Next Purpose: DIRECTIONS
Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2019
Date: 11-11-2019
Business: Adv. Sana Khan for plff present.
None for deft.
Exh.1 Plaint.
Exh.2 V.P.
Exh.3 address memo.
Exh.4 List of documents.
Adv. for plff tendered registered N.M. No. 3949/19 @ affidavit in support TOR.
Plff is directed to filed affidavit of service of said N.M. and also directed to writ of summons upon deft through RPAD. Adjd for service to. 14.01.2020.
Next Purpose: SERVICE
Next Hearing Date: 14-01-2020
Date: 14-01-2020
Business: Adv. Neha Pande for plaintiff present.
Adv. S. R. Singh and Co. for defendant present and tendered vakalatnama t.o.r. Its marked at Exh. 7. he has also tendered reply to NM. Copy served to other side.
Defendant is present.
Adjd to 25-02-2020 for rejoinder / NM Hearing
Next Purpose: REJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2020
Date: 25-02-2020
Business: Adv. Shriwastav for plaintiff present.
None for defendants.
On oral request of Ld. Adv. for plaintiff adjournment granted.
Adjd to 21-04-2020 for Rejoinder .
Next Purpose: REJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 21-04-2020
Date: 21-04-2020
Reason For Adjournment: National Lock Down
Next Purpose: REJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 12-05-2020
Date: 12-05-2020
Business: As per office order no.77/2020 dated 43.5.2020 and due to lock-down, matter is adjourned.
Next Purpose: REJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2020
Date: 01-06-2020
Business: In view of Lockdown period pursuant to the declaration of Novel Corona Virus (Covid-19) as global pademic by WHO and as per Office Order 78 of 2020, matter adjourned
Next Purpose: REJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 18-06-2020
Date: 18-06-2020
Business: In view of declaration of Novel Corona Virus (COVID 19) as Global Pandemic by WHO and Office Orders, matter is adjourned.
Next Purpose: REJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2020
Date: 24-08-2020
Business: None present. In view of declaration of Novel Corona Virus (COVID 19) as Global Pandemic by WHO and Office Orders, matter is adjourned to
Next Purpose: REJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 31-08-2020
Date: 31-08-2020
Business: In view of declaration of Novel Corona Virus (COVID 19) as Global Pandemic by WHO and Office Orders, matter is adjourned.
Next Purpose: REJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 03-11-2020
Date: 03-11-2020
Business: Both the parties and their advs absent. Due to COVID 19, the matter is adjd
Next Purpose: REJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 13-01-2021
Date: 13-01-2021
Business: Adv. Saraogi for plaintiff present.
None for deft.
Rejoinder filed by counsel for plaintiff. T.O.R.
Ld. counsel for plaintiff is ready for argument. Last chance is granted to deft. for argument.
The matter is adjd for N/M hearing to 16.02.2021.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2021
Date: 16-02-2021
Business: Adv. Singh for plaintiff present.
Adv. S.R. Singh for deft. present.
Ld. counsel for plaintiff seeks time. Granted.
The matter is adjd for hearing on N/M to 26.03.2021.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 26-03-2021
Date: 26-03-2021
Business: In view of the office order no.63/21 dated 25.03.2021, only moderate numbers of matters are kept on board. This matter is not in the same list hence, adjourned to 09.07.2021 for N/M hearing.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 09-07-2021
Date: 09-07-2021
Reason For Adjournment: Adjourned due to Covid-19
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 30-08-2021
Date: 30-08-2021
Business: Adv. Neha Pandey for plaintiff present.
Adv. Sunita Manna for deft. present.
Adv. For plaintiff sought adjournment for hearing on N/M. Adjournment as prayed for is granted as a last chance.
The matter is adjd for N/M hearing to 22.09.2021.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2021
Date: 22-09-2021
Business: CORAM : H.H.J. SHRI S.U. HAKE, JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT (C. R. NO. 14)
Adv.Narvekar for plaintiff present.
Adv.S.R. Singh for deft. present.
The matter is adjd for N/m for hearing to 05-10-2021
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2021
Date: 05-10-2021
Business: Adv. Narvekar for plaintiff present.
Adv. Riddhi Doshi for deft. present.
K.B.
L.O.
Adv. Saraogi for plaintiff present.
Adv. Riddhi Doshi for deft. present.
Head arguments of Adv. For plaintiff on N/M no.3949/19.
The matter is adjd for order on N/M no.3949/19 to 11.10.2021.
Next Purpose: NM ORDERS
Next Hearing Date: 11-10-2021
Date: 11-10-2021
Business: Adv. Narvekar for plaintiff present.
None for deft.
ORDER BELOW N/M NO.3949/19
Heard both sides. Perused the N/M, reply to N/M and rejoinder affidavit of plaintiff.
Plaintiff contends that he has purchased motor vehicle by taking finance assistance from deft. He was making monthly installments to deft. He has also taken out insurance policy from deft. However, his motor vehicle was stolen. He gave report for the same. Concerned investigating officer filed the \''A summary report\'' and said \''A summary report\'' was accepted by Hon\''ble Metropolitan Magistrate. Plaintiff further submits that he is entitled to get value of the motor vehicle from deft. insurance company. But, deft. is trying to take coercive action against plaintiff for recovery of loan amount. By making these submissions, plaintiff prayed to restrain deft. from taking coercive action against him for recovery of the loan amount.
Deft. by filing reply strongly objected the N/M. It is submitted that deft. is not a financial institution. It has not advanced loan amount to plaintiff. Deft. is a company dealing with the business of insurance. Deft. is not concerned with the loan given to plaintiff. By making these submissions, deft. prayed to reject the N/M.
Considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides. As per copy of the account statement filed on record along with plaint, it is clear, as crystal, that deft. has not advanced loan to the plaintiff. One \''Magma Fincorp Ltd.\'' advanced loan to the plaintiff. Deft. is an insurance company who has insured plaintiff\''s vehicle. As deft. has not advanced loan to the plaintiff for purchasing the motor vehicle, there is no question of taking coercive action against plaintiff for recovery of loan amount. Thus, plaintiff has failed to raise a fair question against deft. which requires trial. Plaintiff failed to establish prima-facie case. Therefore, he is not entitled to get relief of temporary injunction as prayed for. In the result, following order.
ORDER
1. N/M No.3949/19 is dismissed.
2. Costs in cause.
3. N/M No.3949/19 is disposed of accordingly.
The matter is adjd for taking steps to 09.11.2021.
Next Purpose: FOR TAKING STEPS
Next Hearing Date: 09-11-2021
Date: 09-11-2021
Business: P.O. is on Leave
Matter is adjourned.
Next Purpose: FOR TAKING STEPS
Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2021
Date: 08-12-2021
Business: P.O.is on Leave,
Matter Adjd.
Next Purpose: FOR TAKING STEPS
Next Hearing Date: 03-01-2022
Date: 03-01-2022
Business: None for plaintiff.
Adv. Riddhi Doshi for deft. present.
The matter is adjd for steps to 11.02.2022.
L.O. at 11.55 am.
Adv. Sana Khan for plaintiff present.
The matter is already adjd for steps to 11.02.2022.
Next Purpose: FOR TAKING STEPS
Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2022
Date: 11-02-2022
Business: None for plaintiff.
Adv. Sunita Manna for deft. present.
In view of Office Order No.22/2022 dated 28.01.2022, the matter is adjd for steps to 10.03.2022.
Next Purpose: FOR TAKING STEPS
Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2022
Date: 10-03-2022
Business: Adv. Sana Khan for plaintiff present.
Adv. Sunita Manna for deft. present.
Adv. For plaintiff sought time for taking steps. Adjourned for taking steps as a last chance.
The matter is adjd for taking steps to 12.04.2022.
Next Purpose: FOR TAKING STEPS
Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2022
Date: 12-04-2022
Business: None for plaintiff.
Adv. Sunita Manna for deft. present.
The matter is adjd for steps to 09.06.2022.
Next Purpose: FOR TAKING STEPS
Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2022
Date: 09-06-2022
Business: Adv. Narvekar for plaintiff present.
Adv. Riddhi Doshi for deft. present.
Adv. For plaintiff submits that plaintiff wants to file Ch/sum for addition of parties. She sought time for taking steps. Time as prayed for is granted as a last chance.
The matter is adjd for steps to 01.07.2022.
Next Purpose: FOR TAKING STEPS
Next Hearing Date: 01-07-2022
Date: 01-07-2022
Business: None for plaintiff.
Adv. Riddhi Doshi for deft. present.
Adv. For deft. tendered draft N/M. Leave to register N/M is granted.
The matter is adjd for service of N/M and reply to 08.07.2022.
L.O. at 11.35 am.
Adv. Neha Pandey for plaintiff present.
The matter is already adjd for service of N/M and reply to 08.07.2022.
Next Purpose: SERVICE
Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2022
Date: 08-07-2022
Business: None for plaintiff.
Adv. Riddhi Doshi for deft. present.
Adv. For deft. tendered registered N/M No.2303/22. T.O.R.
K.B.
L.O. at 02.50 pm.
None for plaintiff.
Adv. Riddhi Doshi for deft. present.
Adv. For deft. submits that N/M is served to the plaintiff. Inspite of service of N/M, plaintiff failed to file reply to N/M. Therefore, N/M to proceed without reply.
The matter is adjd for hearing on N/M to 13.07.2022.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2022
Date: 13-07-2022
Business: Adv. Karan Chaudhary for plaintiff present.
Adv. Riddhi Doshi for deft. present.
On oral request of advocate appearing on behalf of plaintiff, the matter is adjourned for hearing on N/M as a last chance.
The matter is adjd for hearing on N/M to 14.07.2022.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2022
Date: 14-07-2022
Date: 18-07-2022
Business: Adv. Neha Pandey for plaintiff present.
Adv. Riddhi Doshi for defendant present.
ORDER BELOW N/M NO.2303/2022
Heard both sides.
2. This N/M is taken out by defendant praying to reject the plaint as per Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.
3. Inspite of service of N/M, plaintiff failed to file reply. Therefore, N/M proceeded without reply of plaintiff.
4. Defendant submits that there is no cause of action to file suit against defendant. Suit is barred by Limitation Act. Ld. Counsel for defendant relied upon the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh V/s. Ram Prasanna Singh (dead) by legal representatives, (2020) 16 Supreme Court Cases 601. In this case, Hon\''ble Apex Court held that plaint is liable to be rejected if on entire and meaningful reading of averments of plaint, it is found to be not disclosing a cause of action and clear right to sue or is found to be barred by law of limitation.
5. It is well settled that for deciding present N/M, averments made in the plaint are required to be considered.
6. Plaintiff contends that he has purchased motor vehicle by taking financial assistance from defendant. He was making monthly installments to defendant. He has also taken out insurance policy from defendant. Said policy was valid from 27.12.2013 to 26.12.2014. However, his motor vehicle was stolen. He gave report for the same. On the basis of said report, crime bearing no.98/2014 was registered at police station, R.A.K. Marg, Mumbai. Concerned investigating officer filed the \''A summary report\'' and said \''A summary report\'' was accepted by Hon\''ble Metropolitan Magistrate. Plaintiff further submits that he is entitled to get value of the motor vehicle from defendant insurance company. But, defendant is trying to take coercive action against plaintiff for recovery of loan amount. By making these averments, plaintiff prayed for declaration that nothing is payable by plaintiff to defendant. Plaintiff further prayed for perpetual injunction restraining defendant from taking coercive action against him for recovery of the loan amount.
7. Plaintiff pleads that he has taken loan from defendant. He relied upon account statement (Exh.A). As per copy of the account statement filed on record along with plaint (Exh.A), it is crystal clear that defendant has not advanced loan to the plaintiff. One \''Magma Fincorp Ltd.\'' advanced loan to the plaintiff. As per certificate of insurance (Exh.B) annexed with plaint, defendant is an insurance company who has insured plaintiff\''s vehicle.
8. From the averments made in the plaint and documents annexed with the plaint, it can be safely inferred that present defendant has not advanced loan to the plaintiff for purchasing the motor vehicle. In para no.29 of the plaint, it is pleaded that cause of action to file suit arose in May/August 2019 when criminal proceedings are initiated by defendant against plaintiff. However, plaintiff has neither pleaded particulars of said proceeding nor filed on record copies of said proceeding.
9. As discussed above, defendant has not advanced loan to the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no question of taking coercive action against plaintiff for recovery of loan amount. Plaintiff is also not entitled to get the declaration against defendant as prayed in the plaint. Thus, plaint does not disclose a cause of action against defendant. Therefore, plaint is liable to be rejected as per Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of C.P.C. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, no order regarding costs is passed. In the result, following order.
ORDER
1. Plaint is rejected.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Decree thus follow.
4. Notice of Motion No.2303 of 2022 is disposed of accordingly.
5. Proceedings be closed.
Nature Of Disposal: PLAINT REJECTED
Disposal Date: 18-07-2022