Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/m No. 4281/19 in Suit No. 1702/10. 1 Order.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4281 OF 2019
(CNR NO. MHCC01-011715-2019)
IN
L. C. SUIT NO. 1702 OF 2010
ANTHONY DEVASI SEBASTIAN ...Plaintif
Versus
M.C.G.M. & ANR ...Defendants
CORAM : SHRI U.J.MORE
(C.R.NO.08).
DATE : 12th FEBRUARY, 2020
=====================================
Mr. Iqbal Singh, Advocate for Plaintif.
Mrs.N.P.Wagale, Advocate for Defendant No.2
Mr. Khandagale, Advocate for MCGM.
=====================================
ORDER
1. This Notice of Motion taken out by Defendant No.2.
It is stated that defendant No.2 was carrying the original
Notice of Motion bearing No.478 of 2019 along-with afdavit in
support dated 29.01.2019 for direction of issuing perjury
against the plaintif with him for hearing before the competent
authority at Bandra on 21.02.2019. His bag was containing
some of his original documents including the original Notice of
Motion and afdavit in support thereof was misplaced/lost. He
filed complaint at Kherwadi Police Station. It is prayed that,
Notice of Motion be allowed to be reconstructed in the interest
of justice.
-- 1 of 4 --
N/m No. 4281/19 in Suit No. 1702/10. 2 Order.
2. Defendant objected it is stated that unless and until
department files search report as department has taken
thorough search and in spite of taking the search the
department fails to file concern documents. Without search
report this application is not tenable.
3. It is submitted by Adv.N.P.Wagale that the Notice of
Motion is lost while defendant No.2 went to Bandra for ofcial
purpose. He immediately filed police complaint. If Notice of
Motion is reconstructed there is no loss to the plaintif.
4. Ld.Adv. Iqbal Singh submitted that no original
complaint is on record. Notice of Motion be dismissed.
5. Heard, both the sides at lengh.
6. It is admitted fact that, the Notice of Motion No.478
of 2019 was registered in court supported by the afdavit. It
also transpires that it was lost at the instance of defendant
No.2 along-with other documents when defendant went for
hearing before competent authority. If the Notice of Motion
which is for the serious allegations of perjury, not
reconstructed it will be certainly loss of defendant No.2.
7. On the other side if Notice of Motion reconstructed
certainly plaintif have right of opportunity to file reply and
challenged it on merit. I am of the opinion that fair opportunity
needs to be given to the defendant No.2 considering just and
-- 2 of 4 --
N/m No. 4281/19 in Suit No. 1702/10. 3 Order.
proper reason that the original Notice of Motion is lost.
8. I don't feel it will cause any irreparable loss to the
plaintif. The record revels in other two matters between the
same parties. The Ld. Predecessor was pleased to allowed to
reconstruct Notice of Motion in such circumstances. Hence I
proceed to pass following order.
- ORDER -
1. Notice of Motion No. 4281 of 2019 is allowed.
2. Notice of Motion No. 478 of 2019 be reconstructed
subject to cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only)
to be paid to the D.L.S.A. on or before next date,
3. Notice of Motion No. 4281 of 2019 is disposed of
accordingly.
(U.J.More)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mumbai.
Date : 12/02/2020.
1. Dictated on : 12/02/2020.
2. Transcribed on : 12/02/2020.
3. Signed on : 12/02/2020.
-- 3 of 4 --
N/m No. 4281/19 in Suit No. 1702/10. 4 Order.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
13/02/2020. at 11:30 p.m. Mr.G.R.Suryawanshi
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri U.J.More.
(Court Room No.08).
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
12/02/2020.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 12/02/2020.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 13/02/2020.
-- 4 of 4 --