Order 1

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: 1 OBE-12
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI.
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT -12
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4416 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 977 OF 2019
Smt. Lalita Devendra Tare ...Plaintiff
V/s.
Rajesh Pasco Koli ...Defendant
Appearance
Mr. Kapse Advocate for the plaintiff.
Mr. P. Chaurasiya Advocate for the defendant.
CORAM : HHJ R. S. Aradhye
(C.R.NO.62)
Date : 6th August, 2024
O R D E R
The present application is moved by the plaintiff for
correction in the prayer clause of Contempt Notice of Motion
No.4416/2019 and by way of affidavit in reply Exh.13, defendant has
taken the objection for allowing the same. Heard both the sides.
2. It is the contention of plaintiff that she filed Contempt
Notice of Motion No. 4416/2019 against the defendant for committal of
the breach of the order of the Court and wherein it is wrongly typed
that ‘partly demolishe suit premises’ but insrtead of that she ought to
-- 1 of 4 --
2 OBE-12
have mention that ‘defendant has created third party interest in the suit
premises’. As per the plaintiff, this is nothing but the typographical
error and in view of Section 153 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Court has ample power to rectify typographical or arithmatical error
caused in the pleading.
3. On behalf of defendant, it is contended that the present
application has not signed and verified by the plaintiff, it is simply filed
with the signatrue of Advocate of the plaintiff. One more ground is
raised by the defendant that for any type of amendment either in the
suit or notice of motion party is required to file the separate chamber
summons and like the present application is not the proper remedy for
the relief asked.
4. I have gone through the prayer clause (a) of the Contempt
Notice of Motion No. 4416/2019 and from the last six line, it is
mentioned that ‘partly demolished suit premises’ now, plaintiff wants to
rectify it with substitute sentence that ‘defendant has created third party
interest in the suit premises’. It is the fact that application is filed by the
Advocate for plaintiff with his signature and there is no affirmation or
verification of the plaintiff in support of the contentions raised in the
application. Moreover, as per the settled legal position for any equitable
relief like injunction, amendment, appointment of Court Commissioner
or Receiver there should be supporting affidavit of the party claiming
such relief. The Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court Rules 1948 as
well as the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 is concerned, the specific
procedure is provided in Chapter III and IV of the concerned Rules
regarding the Motion and Chamber business of the Court. Here in the
-- 2 of 4 --
3 OBE-12
present case, plaintiff has filed simple application without her
affirmation and verification. Thus, in view of this, I find substance in
the objection raised by the defendant about the technical lacunas in the
application. In the result accordingly application deserves to be rejected,
so the following order is passed;
ORDER
1. Application Exhibit-12 is rejected.
2. No order as to cost.
(R. S. Aradhye)
Date : 06.08.2024 Judge,
Dictated on : 06/08/2024 City Civil Court,
transcribed on : 07/08/2024 Mumbai.
Signed on : 08/08/2024
-- 3 of 4 --
4 OBE-12
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
08.08.2024 5.55 p.m. Mr. S.S. Bathe
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge(with CR No.) HHJ SHRI. R.A. SASNE (C.R.No.62)
Date of pronouncement of Order 06.08.2024
Order signed by P.O. on 08.08.2024
Order uploaded on 08.08.2024
-- 4 of 4 --