Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 4789-19 in S.C. Suit no.18-19
1 Date :16.12.2019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4789 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 18 OF 2019
(CNR NO.MHCC01 0130712019 )
Mrs. Nalini Mahendra Thacker .. Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Kamal Mahendra Thacker .. Defendant
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. J.S.Kini i/b Narendra Gharat for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv.Sanjay T Manek for defendant.
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. A.H.Laddhad
Additional Judge
CR No. : 7
Date : 16.12.2019
ORDER
1. The defendant filed instant Notice of Motion for review of
Order dated 21.11.2019 passed in Notice of Motion No. 20 of 2019
and seeking to hear and decide the same on merit.
2. It is contended by the Advocate Shri. Keni that the Notice of
Motion No. 20 of 2019 is heard finally on 21.07.2019 before C.R.
No. 4. Therefore, he is seeing review of the Order dated
21.11.2019. However, thereafter this Court without hearing the
Advocate for defendant passed an order dated 21.11.2019 which is
-- 1 of 4 --
NM 4789-19 in S.C. Suit no.18-19
2 Date :16.12.2019
against principal of natural justice and error apparent on the face
of record. Thereafter, the matter was transferred to this Court on
15.11.2019. This Court directed to argue Notice of Motion afresh
without hearing the defendant. This Court passed impugned
order. Per contra plaintiff opposed Notice of Motion by filing reply
and contended that the Notice of Motion was rightly decided by
this Court.
3. Heard both the sides. Perused Notice of Motion, reply as
well as Roznama dated 15.11.2019 and 21.11.2019. It is not in
dispute that the Advocate Mr. Narendra Gharat was present on
21.11.2019. Moreover, it is further not in dispute that defendant
filed his detailed reply to Notice of Motion No. 20 of 2019. Hence,
in my view, it can not be contended that the order dated
21.11.2019 is passed without giving opportunity to the defendant.
Moreover, in my view, the scope of review as per order 47 of CPC
is very limited only to the extent of error apparent on the face of
record. The defendant’s Advocate failed to point out any error
apparent on the face of record of order dated 21.11.2019. Hence,
I do not find any substance in the Notice of Motion. Thus, I
proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 4789 of 2019 is hereby rejected.
2. Defendant to bear cost of Notice of Motion.
-- 2 of 4 --
NM 4789-19 in S.C. Suit no.18-19
3 Date :16.12.2019
3. Notice of Motion No. 4789 of 2019 is disposed off
accordingly.
(A.H.Laddhad)
Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court,
Dated : 16.12.2019 Greater Bombay.
Dictated on : 16.12.2019
Typed on : 16.12.2019
Draft Submitted on : 16.12.2019
Checked on : 16.12.2019
Signed on : 16.12.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
NM 4789-19 in S.C. Suit no.18-19
4 Date :16.12.2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
16/12/2019 at 3.30 p.m. (Ms. V.V.Sawant)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
Shri A.H.LADDHAD
(C.R. No.7)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
16/12/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
16/12/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 16/12/2019
-- 4 of 4 --