Date: 11-10-2019
Business: Matter called out(11.48am)
Plaintiff in person present.
Adv.Trupti Surve i/b Adv.Sahil Mahajan for defendant present.
Defendant tendered original notice of Motion.T.O.R
Copy serve to the plaintiff who is present in person in the court.
Matter is adj to 02/11/19 for reply on N/M.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2019
Date: 02-11-2019
Business: Matter is called out at 3.03 pm
Adv. Sujata Natekar for plaintiff present, she filed reply to NM 3777/19.
Copy served to the other side.
Adv.Trupti Surve for defendant present.
At the request of both the side matter is adj for hearing to 27.11.2019
Next Purpose: HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2019
Date: 27-11-2019
Business: Matter called out(3.02pm)
Adv.Vijay Vaghela for plaintiff present.
Adv.Trupati Surve for defendant present.
Court is busy in final argument of Suit No.6822/79, 6823/79, 6824/79 and 6826/79.
Hence, matter is adj to 09/01/2020 for N/M hearing.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2020
Date: 09-01-2020
Business: Matter is called out at 2.52pm
Plaintiff and his advocate absent.
Adv.Trupti Surve for defendant present.
At the request of defendant matter kept back.
Second time matter called out(4.09pm)
Plaintiff in person present.
Adv.Trupti Surve for defendant present.
Matter kept back.
Third time matter called out(5.23pm)
Plaintiff in person present.
Adv.Vijay Vaghela for plaintiff present.
Adv.Trupti Surve for defendant present.
Heard Ld.Adv. for the plaintiff he took objection that the affidavit in support of the motion not filed by the defendant no.2 but it is filed by third person. The advocate for defendant contained that it is a typographical mistake. The same mistake is continue in verification clause wherein the defendant no.2 is also referred as pattern of defendant no.1. Order- I have perused the verification clause as well as last page of affidavit in support of the motion. In verification clause it is specifically referred the defendant no.2 as a pattern of defendant no.1. Admittedly there is no HUF as party defendant. I find it is clerical mistake therefore, I allowed the same to be corrected by the defendant. Adv. for defendant submitted that carryout the correction within a week. Time granted. Adv.for plaintiff contained that defendant should supply such corrected copy. The advocate for defendant contained that she will apply to certified copy. Hence, looking to the aforesaid objection defendant is allowed to carryout necessary amendment forthwith in court and also supply the copy to the otherside. The advocate for plaintiff submitted that such correction is required presence of client. In my view, when party have appointed advocate they have every right to carryout the such amendment. This court have no objection for correction to carryout by the advocate of the defendant in the affidavit.
Adv. for plaintiff is at liberty to file further reply on merit. Time granted. Now after taking instruction from the client who is present in the court, the advocate for plaintiff submitted that he do not want to file further reply and court may be pass the order.
Heard both the side on N/M No.3777/19.
F.R.S.R following order is passed on N/M No.3777/19.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 3777 of 2019 is made absolute by consent in terms of prayer clause (a),(b),(c) and (d).
2. Defendants to bear cost of Notice of Motion.
3. Defendant is allowed to deposited draft of Rs.4alkh within one week.
4.Notice of Motion No. 3777 of 2019 is disposed off accordingly.
Nature Of Disposal: ALLOWED
Disposal Date: 09-01-2020
