Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: MHCC010098452019
CNR NO. MHCC010098452019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3619 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.8582 OF 1993
(HIGH COURT SUIT NO.410 OF 1993)
Smt. Shantibai Ramchand Punjabi ]… Plaintiff.
V/s.
Smt. Bimla S. Dua ]... Defendant.
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Mr. Rohit Pawaskar for plaintiff.
Ld.Adv. Ms. Gayatri Sharma for defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. R.K. KSHIRSAGAR
(C.R.No.13)
DATED : 15th December, 2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Notice of Motion is taken out by the defendant
for reviewed the order dated 11.01.2018 for exhibiting the Agreement
for Sale dated 27.08.1992 and further to deexhibit the said Agreement
for sale.
-- 1 of 4 --
2 NM 3619/2019 in
Suit 8582/1993
2. It was submitted by the defendant that the plaintiff relied
upon the documents and filed her affidavit of evidence vide Exh.7. The
defendant filed objection on 28.02.2014 and objected to the agreement
of sale dated 27.08.1992 on the ground that it is not duly stamped and
hence, not admissible in evidence. The document was however
exhibited. There is an error apparent on the face of the record and
therefore the said order be reviewed and the document vide Exh.9 be
deexhibited.
3. The plaintiff filed reply to Notice of Motion and denied the
contention of defendant. It was submitted that merely because the
advocate has changed, it is not a ground for review of order passed by
the Court. The present Notice of Motion is not maintainable and is filed
only to delay the trial. The defendant in her written statement admitted
the execution of the agreement dated 27.08.1992 and hence, as per the
say given by the defendant, the document was exhibited and hence, the
Notice of Motion be dismissed.
4. Heard Learned Advocates for both parties, the contents are
not reproduced. The plaintiff filed her evidence of affidavit and
compilation of documents vide Exh.5. The defendant gave say on the
documents and submitted that the documents at Sr. No.1 to 3 may be
exhibited. As per the order in Roznama dated 11.01.2018, the
document was admitted and hence, marked as exhibit. The first
contention of the defendant is to review the said order. It seems that
the order was passed by my Learned Predecessor after hearing the
parties on admissibility of documents. Also the defendant in her say
stated that the said document may be exhibited and accordingly the
-- 2 of 4 --
3 NM 3619/2019 in
Suit 8582/1993
document at Sr. No.1 i.e. Agreement of sale was exhibited. There
seems no error on the face of the record so as to review the order. Also
there is no change in the circumstances to review the order. Moreover,
there is no provision to deexhibit the document once exhibited. The
defendant is having opportunity to crossexamine P.W.1 in respect of
the said document. Lastly, the contention of the defendant is that the
said document is not admissible as proper stamp duty is not paid. Even
if presumed that the stamp duty is not paid the document cannot be
exhibited and the order is not required be reviewed and therefore, I
proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
1. The Notice of Motion No.3619 of 2019 is dismissed.
2. Parties to bear their own costs.
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Dt.: 15122022 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
Dictated on : 15122022
Transcribed on : 19122022
checked on : 19122022
Signed on : 19122022
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 3 of 4 --
4 NM 3619/2019 in
Suit 8582/1993
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
19.12.2022 at 04.45 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME (VARSHA U. PAWAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Smt.R.K.Kshirsagar
(COURT ROOM NO.13)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
15.12.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 19.12.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 19.12.2022
-- 4 of 4 --