Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: Page-1
Daily Status
IN THE COURT OF :COURT 1 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
Case No. :NOTICE OF MOTION/0104009/2019
Uma Ashok Mudigonda Vs 1.Arvind Kashinath Injamuri 2.Anil Bhosale 3.Sangita Nandal
Date : 18-06-2018
Business : Adv. Ms. Bhagyashree Mangle for pltff present. Adv. Mr.
Sangharsh Waghmare for Deft present. Mr. Bhimrao Shankar
Kudale present before the court and he has again stated in
respect of service on deft no. 1. According to him, deft no. 1
has accepted the service. He has pointed out signature of deft
no. 1 on exh. A annexed alongwith his affidavit of service. It
further from his affidavit, it discloses that service was done on
deft no. 1 on 23.02.2017. It appears that on next date i.e. on
24.02.2017, Adv P. M. Kulkarni has appeared before the court
on behalf of deft no. 1 and also filed Vakalatnama for deft no.
1. Thereafter on 13.04.2018 another advocate i.e present
advocate appeared on behalf of deft no. 1 by filing
Vakalatnama. According to deft no. 1, his signature is forged
on exh 2 vakalatnama. He never appointed Adv P. M.
Kulkarni for him. In such circumstance, it is for deft no. 1 to
take appropriate action against Adv. P. M. Kulkarni. Exh.9
The plaintiff has tendered miscellaneous application on behalf
of deft no. 1 under section 340 r/w section 195 (1), (b) of Cr.
P. C. Perused application,. In view of above facts and
circumstances, it is for deft no. 1 to take and initiate action
against Advocate Mr. P. M. Kulkarni, if according to him, his
signature is forged below exh. 2. Thus present miscellaneous
Application is not maintainable in this suit and accordingly
miscellaneous application exh. 9 is disposed of. On last date,
the plaintiff has filed an application for withdrawal of the suit
vide exh. 8. As per the directions, she has secured the presence
of Bhimrao Shankar Kudale before this court. It appears from
exh. 8 that the plaintiff wants to withdraw the suit and she is
present before the court. According to her, MHADA has
issued notice to the plaintiff for eviction and therefore the suit
has become infructuous and she want to withdraw the suit. It
appears that in the suit, the plaintiff has claimed relief of
permanent injunction in respect of suit premises except by due
process of law. According to her, now she received notice of
eviction from MHADA. In this background it is just and
proper to allow the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. Hence exh. 8
application is hereby allowed. In view of order passed below
exh.8, suit is to be disposed of as withdrawn. Hence suit no.
500/17 stands disposed of as withdrawn. Consequently Notice
of Motion no. 917/17 also stands disposed of.
Nature of Disposal : WITHDRAWL
Disposal Date : 18-06-2018
COURT 1 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
-- 1 of 1 --