Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 3913-19 in NM No. 1387 of 2018
Suit no. 7119 of 2006 HC Suit No. 2879 of 2006
1 Date : 24.10.2019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3913 OF 2019
IN
NM NO. 1387 OF 2018
SUIT NO. 7119 OF 2006
(H.C.SUIT NO. 2879 OF 2006)
(CNR NO.MHCC01 0107562019 )
Mr. Anwar Pasha & Anr. .. Plaintiffs
Versus
Mr. Shamsuddin Naikwadi .. Defendant
Appearances :
Adv.Surbhi Gujar for plaintiff present.
Adv.Mrs.Sana Y. Baugwala for defendant present.
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. A.H.Laddhad
Additional Judge
CR No. : 7
Date : 24.10.2019
ORDER
1. The defendant has filed instant Notice of Motion for recalling
of order dated 07.06.2019 passed by Court Room No. 13 in Notice
of Motion No. 1387 of 2018, on the ground that same is passed
without Jurisdiction.
2. It is contended by the defendant that my predecessor
allowed the Notice of Motion No. 1387 of 2018 subject to
condition of payment of the cost of Rs. 3,500/ and permitted the
defendant to adduce evidence on next date. It is contended by the
-- 1 of 4 --
NM 3913-19 in NM No. 1387 of 2018
Suit no. 7119 of 2006 HC Suit No. 2879 of 2006
2 Date : 24.10.2019
defendant that Hon’ble Principal Judge vide, Office Order No. 66
of 2019 dated 04.04.2019 designated Court Room No. 9 as Special
Court. However, on 07.06.2019, Court Room No. 13 was not
designated Court. Hence, the Order passed by Court Room No. 13
is without Jurisdiction. Hence, the defendant seeking to recall the
aforesaid order dated 07.06.2019.
3. Per contra the Notice of Motion is opposed by the plaintiff by
filing say. It is contended by the plaintiff that defendant filed
Notice of Motion with malafide and dishonest intention to delay
the hearing of the suit. It is submitted by the plaintiff that Order
No. 66 of 2019 is administrative which could not came in th way
of earlier Court Room No.13 for passing of Order dated
07.06.2019. Hence, the plaintiff contended that the Notice of
Motion is misconceived and same needs to be dismissed with cost.
4. Heard both the sides. Perused Notice of Motion and reply.
The defendant has filed instant Notice of Motion on the ground
that the Hon’ble Principal Judge vide, Office Order No. 66 of 2019
dated 04.04.2019 constituted designated Court. The parties in the
present suit are senior citizen. Therefore, any order passed by
other than designated Court are null and void.
5. In my view, the Office Order No. 66 of 2019 dated
04.04.2019 is administrative order which is passed in pursuance of
Government Resolution dated 03.03.2018. It is an administrative
-- 2 of 4 --
NM 3913-19 in NM No. 1387 of 2018
Suit no. 7119 of 2006 HC Suit No. 2879 of 2006
3 Date : 24.10.2019
order. All the judges of City Civil Court are of equal cadre,
therefore, there is no Jurisdictional error. The Notice of Motion is
misconceived and same needs to be dismissed with cost of Rs.
2,500/ to be payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. Thus, I
proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 3913 of 2019 is hereby dismissed with
cost of Rs. 2,500/ to be payable by the defendant to the
plaintiff.
2. The defendant to comply with the order dated 07.06.2019
and to pay cost of Rs. 3,500/ as imposed by the said order.
3. Notice of Motion No. 3913 of 2019 is disposed off
accordingly.
(A.H.Laddhad)
Additional Judge
Bombay City Civil Court
Dated : 24.10.2019 Greater Bombay.
Dictated on : 24.10.2019
Typed on : 24.10.2019
Draft Submitted on : 24.10.2019
Checked on : 24.10.2019
Signed on : 24.10.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
NM 3913-19 in NM No. 1387 of 2018
Suit no. 7119 of 2006 HC Suit No. 2879 of 2006
4 Date : 24.10.2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
24/10/2019 at 5.00 p.m. (Ms. V.V.Sawant)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
Shri A.H.LADDHAD
(C.R. No.7)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
24/10/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
24/10/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 24/10/2019
-- 4 of 4 --