Skip to main content
Court Order

Final Order 1

CNR MHCC01011175201904 Mar 2020
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Final Order 1 · 04 Mar 2020 · CNR MHCC010111752019

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: :1: N. M. No.4066/2019 in Sum. Suit No.560/2013
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4066 OF 2019
CNR NO.: MHCC01-011175-2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 560 OF 2013
Mr. Arvind Dharmashi Khuthiya ...Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Sai Prabha Marine Services Pvt. Ltd.
and another ...Defendants
Appearances:-
Advocate Ms. Disha Vardhan for the plaintiff.
Advocate Bhandary for the defendants.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SONALI P. AGARWAL
(C.R.NO. 14)
DATED : 4th MARCH, 2020.
ORAL ORDER
Defendant has stated that on 20.08.2019, his Advocate had
several matters in various Courts including the Hon’ble High Court.
Ttherefore, when the matter was called out he could not remain present
and he was held up in the Hon’ble High Court. It is further stated that
he was having other matters including in the Small Causes Court,
Bandra and Court Room No.40 also and therefore, Advocate for the
defendants could not conduct the cross examination of the plaintiff’s
witness and prayed to set aside “No cross” order.
2. Plaintiff has filed reply to this Notice of Motion and stated that
defendants failed to appear on many dates in the Court. Plaintiff has
further stated that the adjournment was granted subject to cost of
-- 1 of 3 --
:2: N. M. No.4066/2019 in Sum. Suit No.560/2013
Rs.1000/- to defendants previously. Plaintiff has further stated that
defendants are in habit of delaying the matter. Plaintiff has further
stated that there is no documentary proof showing that defendant’s
Advocate was held up in another Court.
3. Definitely, for the act of Advocate the parties should not suffer.
Considering the fact that previously also Advocate for the defendants
requested for adjournment for cross examination and paid cost of
Rs.1000/- shows that matter is delayed due to defendants. But at the
same time, it appears leave to defend is granted to defendant. Fair
opportunity has to be given to defendant to defend the suit. But at the
same time, plaintiff has to be compensated for delay caused by
defendants. Hence, it will be proper to allow this Notice of Motion
subject to cost. Hence, following order:-
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.4066 of 2019 is allowed subject to cost of
Rs.2,500/- to be given to plaintiff by defendants.
2. Notice of Motion No.4066 of 2019 stands disposed of.
SONALI P. AGARWAL)
Judge,
Date: 04.03.2020. City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 04.03.2020
Transcribed on : 04.03.2020
Signed on : 04.03.2020
-- 2 of 3 --
:3: N. M. No.4066/2019 in Sum. Suit No.560/2013
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
05.03.2020 At 04:21 p.m. Mr. Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ SONALI P. Agarwal
(C.R.NO.14)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
04.03.2020
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 04.03.2020
Judgment/Order uploaded on 05.03.2020
-- 3 of 3 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.