Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/m No. 3901/19 in Suit No. 3231/11. 1 Order.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3901 OF 2019
(CNR NO. MHCC010107432019)
IN
SUIT NO. 3231 OF 2011
(CNR NO. MHCC010039732011)
(HIGH COURT SUIT NO. 425 OF 2011)
Satwant Kumar Sharma ...Plaintiff
Versus
Truefit Engineering Co. Ltd. ...Defendant
CORAM : SHRI G.G.BHANSALI.
(C.R.NO.31).
DATE : 6th NOVEMBER, 2019.
Mr. Akshay Pawar, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mr. A.K.Moily, Advocate for Defendant.
ORDER
This is a motion taken out by defendant additional issues as
enlisted in schedule which runs as follows :
3A. Whether the defendant prove that plaintiff is bound to give
three months notice before his resignation dated
15/01/2008 as per Appointment letter dated 20/04/2007
of the defendant as per clause No.14 ?
3B. Whether the defendant prove the suit is barred by law of
Limitation ?
-- 1 of 3 --
N/m No. 3901/19 in Suit No. 3231/11. 2 Order.
2. Ld. Advocate Moily for defendant requested to note, in
view of appointment letter of plaintiff it was incumbent on the part of
plaintiff to issue 3 months notice. It is added that suit is barred by
limitation. Hence it is prayed for additional issues to be framed as
mentioned above.
3. It is strongly resisted by ld. Advocate Akshay Pawar for
plaintiff. It is submitted that suit is partheard and motion is filed with
intent to protract trial.
4. I have heard both side ld. Advocate at sufficient length. I
have perused appointment letter and letter of resignation. The
documents as referred by both side are not disputed. The contractual
relations between plaintiff and defendant are not disputed. In view of
material averment by plaintiff and denial by defendant, my ld.
Predecessor has framed issues vide Exh.3 on 16/12/2017.
5. The Issue No.1 about entitlement of plaintiff to recover the
amount as prayed by way of salary and remuneration, it is necessary on
the part of plaintiff to prove 3 months notice was compulsory. To that
extent, there is no answer to support issue.
6. In respect of issue to resist the limitation, even in absence
of specific averment it is the duty casted on court to dismiss the suit if it
is barred by law of limitation.
7. In view of Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC, any issue can be
added or altered at any time. Considering aforesaid discussion, there is
no merit in motion. Suit is 8 years old. It is partheard, parties to insist
-- 2 of 3 --
N/m No. 3901/19 in Suit No. 3231/11. 3 Order.
for expedite hearing. Hence the order :
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 3901/2019 stands rejected.
2. Parties may insist for expedite hearing. Both side to file list
of witnesses.
3. Accordingly N/m No. 3901/19 is disposed off.
(G.G.BHANSALI)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 06/11/2019. Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 06/11/2019.
2. Transcribed on : 08/11/2019.
3. Signed on : 08/11/2019.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
08/11/2019. 5.40 p.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri G.G.Bhansali.
(Court Room No.31).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 06/11/2019.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 08/11/2019.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 08/11/2019.
-- 3 of 3 --