Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 3966-19 in Suit no.7594-1997
1 Date :24.01.2020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3966 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 7594 OF 1997
(CNR MHCC01 0109852019 )
Mrs. Frenzine N. Pereira & Anr. .. Plaintiffs
Versus
Mrs. Blossom Fernandes & Ors. .. Defendants
Appearances :
Adv.Melvyn Fernandes h/f Mrs.Premila Rego for plaintiff.
Adv.G.L.Crasto for defendant no. 8.
Adv.Johnson John for defendant no.1 to 4 and 7.
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. A.H.Laddhad
Judge
CR No. : 07
Date : 24.01.2020
ORDER
1. The defendant no. 2 has filed instant Notice of Motion
recalling Order dated 24.09.2019 by which her side was closed.
2. The defendant no. 8 contended that on 24.09.2019, he was
present. The defendant no. 2 though present but could not
marked her presence. On that day, her advocate was not present.
She took the date. Later on upon verification of the business of
earlier dated she took inspection on the Internet of the matter
whereupon, it revealed that her side of evidence is closed. She
immediately filed affidavit and present Notice of Motion on
19.10.2019.
-- 1 of 5 --
NM 3966-19 in Suit no.7594-1997
2 Date :24.01.2020
3. It is contended that due to the miscommunication, the
defendant’s advocate could not remain present. Today, the
defendant is ready with the affidavit. This Court closed the side of
defendant as no evidence was filed by defendant no. 8. If the
impugned order is not recalled, great prejudice would be caused to
her.
4. The plaintiff opposed the Notice of Motion on the ground
that there is no sufficient reason assigned by defendant no. 2.
Heard both the sides. Perused Notice of Motion. It appears that
on 24.09.2019, the side of defendant was closed. However, the
defendant immediately before next date approached the Court for
setting aside the impugned order. Thus, from the conduct of
defendant, it appears that she did not want to delay the
proceedings and she has immediately filed application. The
defendant ready with Affidavit of Evidence. Thus, In my view, the
order dated 24.09.2019 needs to be recalled in the interest of
justice. If the order is not recalled the defendant would denied
opportunity of crossexamination which is against fair trial. The
inconveniency caused to the plaintiff can be compensated by
awarding cost of Rs. 1,000/ payable by the defendant no. 8 to the
plaintiff. Thus, I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 3892 of 2019 is made absolute in terms
of prayer clause (a) and (b) subject to condition of payment
of cost of Rs. 1,000/ by defendant no. 2 to the plaintiff.
-- 2 of 5 --
NM 3966-19 in Suit no.7594-1997
3 Date :24.01.2020
2. Notice of Motion No. 3892 of 2019 is disposed off
accordingly.
(A.H.Laddhad)
Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court,
Dated : 24.01.2020 Greater Bombay.
Dictated on : 24.01.2020
Typed on : 24.01.2020
Draft Submitted on : 24.01.2020
Checked on : 27.01.2020
Signed on : 28.01.2020
-- 3 of 5 --
NM 3966-19 in Suit no.7594-1997
4 Date :24.01.2020
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
29/01/2020 at 3.10 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
24/01/2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
28/01/2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 29/01/2020
-- 4 of 5 --
NM 3966-19 in Suit no.7594-1997
5 Date :24.01.2020
-- 5 of 5 --