Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4469 OF 2019
IN
L.C.SUIT NO. 1171 OF 2013
1.Smt. Lata Digamber Narvekar and Ors. … Plaintiffs.
V/s.
1.Shri. Madhukar Anaji Patil & Ors. ...Defendants
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. R. B. PARVEKAR
CITY CIVIL COURT
GR. MUMBAI
DATE : 20/12/2024
Adv. Amar Patil for the defendants/BMC.
ORAL ORDER
Read notice of motion. Perused record and
proceeding. Plaintiff remains absent since 13.01.2020. Hence,
Present notice of motion proceeds without reply of plaintiff.
Today also plaintiff remains absent. Hence, present Notice of
motion is decided on merits against plaintiff.
2. Heard advocate on behalf of Defendant No.3.
-- 1 of 4 --
2
3. This Notice of motion is taken out by the defendant
No.3/BMC for setting aside NO WS order with permission to
file written statement. As per record and proceeding when the
suit was posted for framing of issues, present notice of motion
is taken out by the defendant in the year 2019. From
29.01.2015 plaintiff remains absent till 05.07.2019.
Thereafter, from 20.11.2019 plaintiff remains absent till date.
As per order dated 01.12.2023 present Notice of motion
proceeds without reply of plaintiff. Thereafter, as per order
dated 13.12.2024 present Notice of motion will be decided on
merits against plaintiff. Today also plaintiff called repeatedly,
he is absent. Hence, present notice of motion is decided on
merits against plaintiff.
4. This is a suit for declaration against agreement
dated 08.02.2012 bearing Registration No.936 of 2012
alongwith injunction in respect of suit premises. From recitals
of plaint and subject matter of the suit, it appears that
valuable rights of defendant/BMC are involved in the present
suit. As per record and roznama, it odes not appear that writ
of summons are served on defendant/BMC. The grounds
mentioned by the defendant/BMC found to be just and
sufficient one. It is not disputed that defendant No.3 is
statutory body, constituted under MMC Act, 1988. If defendant
No.3 is permitted to file written statement subject matter of
-- 2 of 4 --
3
the suit will be decided on merit. It also helps to resolve the
real controversy between the parties. Considering the statutory
status of defendant No.3, and writ of summons are not served
on defendant No.3/BMC, number of litigation pending in
different Court and shortage of staff, collection of instructions,
it is not justifiable to impose cost for considering delay. Hence,
in the interest of justice, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1. Notice of motion No.4469 of 2019 is made absolute in
terms of prayer clause (a).
2. Both the parties to take note of this order.
3. Cost in cause.
4. Notice of motion No.4469 of 2019 is disposed off.
Date-20.12.2024 (R. B. Parvekar)
Judge,City Civil Court
Gr. Mumbai
D i c t a t e d o n : 2 0 . 1 2 . 2 0 2 4
Ty p e d o n : 2 0 . 1 2 . 2 0 2 4
s i g n e d o n :
-- 3 of 4 --
4
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
21/12/2024 05.45 p.m. ( Mayuresh
P. Tathe)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room No.)
HHJ Shri. R. B. Parvekar (C.R.No.06)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
20/12/2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O.on
21/12/2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 21/12/2024
-- 4 of 4 --