Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: MHCC010095672019
Presented On :19/09/2019
Registered On : 10/10/2019
Delivered On :17/11/2021
Duration :Y02/M01/D29
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
LONG CAUSE SUIT NO. 2681 OF 2019
Exhibit No:21
Mr. Lokesh Jagdish Rathod
Aged: 30 years,
Address: Kasarwadi Municipal Chawl No.7
Room No.4, Padmabai Thakkar Road,
Bhawani Shankar, Dadar (W),
Mumbai4000 28. .....Plaintiff
Vs.
1. The Commissioner
Municipal Corporation for
Greater Mumbai, Mahanagar Palika
Marg, Fort, Mumbai400 001.
2.Municipal Corporation for
Greater Mumbai through G/North
Ward having their office at, 11, Harishchandra
Yewale, Near Plaza Theatre, Kasarwadi,
Dadar (W), Mumbai400 028. ...Defendants
-- 1 of 7 --
2 L.C. Suit No.2681/2019
Appearance:
Adv. Mr. Rahul Raut for the plaintiff.
Adv. Ms.Deepali Patil for the defendant/BMC.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. S. G. SHAIKH
CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR. BOMBAY (C.R.NO.06)
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 17/11/2021 )
The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is as under:
1. The plaintiff is the son of Mr. Jagdish Vitthal Rathod, he
was 51 years old and was employed with defendant no.2 Municipal
Corporation in a Solid Waste Management Department. It is the case of
the plaintiff that his father passed away on 04.09.2018. Thereafter, the
plaintiff approached the office of the defendant no.2 vide application
and supporting documents on 03.12.2018 to get the employment in
place of his father on compassionate grounds. The plaintiff supported
his application filed with the defendant no.2 with some documents on
record. The defendant no.2 raised an objection only the college leaving
certificate of the plaintiff which reads his name as “ Lokesh Jagdishbhai
Rathod” instead of “ Lokesh Jagdish Rathod”. The plaintiff states that in
his college leaving certificate his name has been erroneously recorded
as “ Lokesh Jagdishbhai Rathod” so the office of the defendant no.2
issued a letter dated 15.07.2019 and directed the plaintiff to obtain the
order from the Court pertaining to the name of plaintiff's father which is
erroneously recorded as “Jagdishbhai” in the college leaving certificate
of plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for
declaration.
-- 2 of 7 --
3 L.C. Suit No.2681/2019
2. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 BMC appeared on suit summons
and failed to file written statement. Hence, suit proceeded without
written statement of the defendants.
3. Considering the facts, following points arise for my
determination. My findings thereon and reasons therefore are as
follows :
Sr.
No.
Points Findings
1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
declaration as prayed?
…. Yes
2 What order and decree? Suit is decreed
4. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff has adduced oral
and documentary evidence as follows:
ORAL EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF:
A] In order to prove the case of the plaintiff Mr. Lokesh
Jagdish Rathod, he filed his Examination inchief vide Exhibit No.3 as
PW1. His examination in chief followed by his cross examination at
Exhibit No.3.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF:
B] To prove the case, plaintiff has filed following documents.
Exhibit
No.
Description of Document Date
Exhibit
No.7
Birth Certificate of plaintiff. 23/06/1990
Exhibit
No.8
Death and legal heirship certificate issued by
the corporation.
04/09/2018
-- 3 of 7 --
4 L.C. Suit No.2681/2019
Exhibit
No.
Description of Document Date
Exhibit
No.9
Identity Card issued by defendant No.2 to the
plaintiff's father.
Exhibit
No.10
Salary Slips issued by defendant No.2 to the
plaintiff's father.
July2015
August2016
January2017
June2018
Exhibit
No.11
Death Certificate of the plaintiff's father. 28/09/2018
Exhibit
No.12
School Leaving Certificate of plaintiff 27/11/2018
Exhibit
No.13
Letters addressed by defendant no.2 to the
plaintiff.
20.05.2019,
15.07.2019
19.01.2021
Exhibit
No.14
Copy of Ration Card
Exhibit
No.15
Copy of plaintiff's Aadhar card
Exhibit
No.16
Copy of Plaintiff's father Aadhar Card
Exhibit
No.17
Copy of the Gazette 1117
March,2021
Exhibit
No.18
Copy of the Birth Certificate 23.06.1990
Exhibit
No.19
Copy of Death and Legal Heir Certificate 04.09.2018
5. The evidence closed pursis of the plaintiff is at Exhibit20.
6. Perused the evidence and documents on record. Heard the
detail arguments of the Advocate of the plaintiff and the defendants at
length.
-- 4 of 7 --
5 L.C. Suit No.2681/2019
R E A S O N S
As to Point Nos.1 and 2 :
7. The plaintiff has reproduced facts as per the pleading in his
affidavit of examination in chief at Exhibit No.3 and proved the
documents on record. Advocate for the defendant corporation has
cross examined the plaintiff and contested the suit. Undisputedly,
Jagdish Vitthal Rathod was service in defendant no.2 and he died on
04.09.2018 at the age of 51 years. Birth certificate of the plaintiff at
Exhibit No.7, Death and legal heirs certificate issued by defendant
corporation at Exhibit No.8, Ration card Exhibit No.14, Aadhar card of
the plaintiff at Exhibit No.15 proves that name of the father of the
plaintiff is Jagdish Vitthal Rathod and not Jagdishbhai. It is further
proved that the name of the father of the plaintiff is erroneously written
as Jagdishbhai on his college leaving certificate Exhibit No.12. It is held
that the name of the father of the plaintiff is Jagdish Vitthal Rathod.
Therefore, it is necessary to declare that Mr. Lokesh Jagdish Rathod and
Mr. Lokesh Jagdishbhai Rathod are one and the same person and in
consequence plaintiff is entitled for the declaration as prayed. Hence,
Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
As to Point No.2
8. In view of discussions and finding as to point no.1, it is
held that name of the plaintiff is Lokesh Jagdish Rathod and not Lokesh
Jagdishbhai Rathod. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for relief of
declaration as prayed. Hence, suit deserves to be decreed. Parties to
bear their own costs. The parties are to be informed that they shall take
back their original documents as per the procedure laid down in
paragraph No.524 to 528 of the Bombay High Court Civil manual,
failing which those shall be destroyed on expiry of time frame as to
destruction of the documents as laid down in paragraph No.544 of the
-- 5 of 7 --
6 L.C. Suit No.2681/2019
Bombay High Court Civil Manual. The decree following the judgment
conclusively determines the rights of parties. Therefore it shall have
status and character of final decree. Hence, in answer to Point No.2
following order is passed:
ORDER
1. The suit is decreed.
2. By the empowerment of section 34 of The Specific Relief Act,
1963 it is declared that Mr. Lokesh Jagdish Rathod and Mr.
Lokesh Jagdishbhai Rathod are one and the same person.
3. Parties to bear their own costs.
4. The parties are informed that they shall take back their original
documents as per the procedure laid down in paragraph No.524
to 528 of the Bombay High Court Civil manual, failing which
those shall be destroyed on expiry of time frame as to destruction
of the documents as laid down in paragraph No.544 of the
Bombay High Court Civil Manual.
5. The decree following the judgment shall have status and character
of final decree.
6. The L.C.Suit No. 2681/2019 is disposed off.
Date :17/11/2021 (Smt. S. G. Shaikh)
Judge,City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.6)
Dictated on :17/11/2021
Typed on :17/11/2021
Signed on :
-- 6 of 7 --
7 L.C. Suit No.2681/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
20/11/2021 05.00 p.m. ( Mayuresh P. Tathe)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room No.)
HHJ Smt. S. G. Shaikh (C.R.No.06)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
17/11/2021
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O.on
20/11/2021
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 20/11/2021
Reload
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
24/11/2021 03.00 p.m. ( Mayuresh P. Tathe)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room No.)
HHJ Smt. S. G. Shaikh (C.R.No.06)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
17/11/2021
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O.on
20/11/2021
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 24/11/2021
-- 7 of 7 --