Skip to main content
Court Order

Final Order 1

CNR MHCC01013330201924 Mar 2021
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Final Order 1 · 24 Mar 2021 · CNR MHCC010133302019

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM No.4877-2019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4877 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.2108 OF 2013
CNR NO. MHCC01-013330-2019
Shivaji Shankar Agate & Ors. … Plaintiffs
Vs.
Kashinath Agate & Ors. … Defendant
Appearances:
Ld. Adv A. K. Moily for the plaintiffs
Ld. Adv Abhishek Bhatt for defendants No.1(a) to 1(e).
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. R. S. PAVASKAR
(C.R.NO.12)
DATE : 24th MARCH 2021
ORAL ORDER
Defendants No.1(a) to 1(e) have taken out this notice of
motion for setting aside the “No cross” order dated 22.10.2018.
2. Heard the learned Advocate for the parties. Perused the
record.
3. From the affidavit filed in support of the notice of motion,
it is clear that defendant No.1 expired on 02.08.2018 and before his
legal representatives were brought on record, the “No cross” order was
passed against defendant No.1 on 22.10.2018.
Page 1 of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
NM No.4877-2019
4. Indubitably, as per the dated 09.04.2019 in Chamber
Summons No.20 of 2019, the legal representatives of the deceased
defendant No.1 were brought on record. From the
roznama, it is clear
that on 10.10.2019, defendants No.1 (a) to (e) adopted the written
statement filed by the deceased defendant No.1. The plaintiffs had
already closed their evidence. So, the matter was kept for the evidence
of defendants No.1(a) to 1(e).
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and in order to give an
opportunity to the defendants No.1(a) to 1(e) to refute the plaintiffs’
evidence, to my mind, it is expedient in the interest of justice to give
them an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witness by setting
aside the “No cross” order dated 22.10.2018. The plaintiffs will get an
opportunity to lead further evidence. So, even if the order dated
22.10.2018 is set aside, no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiffs.
Accordingly, I hold that the notice of motion deserves to be allowed in
terms of the prayer clause (a) and proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.4877 of 2019 is made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
2. Costs shall be costs in the cause.
3. Notice of Motion No.4877 of 2019 is accordingly
disposed of.
Sd/-
R. S. PAVASKAR
Judge,
Date : 24/03/2021 City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay
Dictated on : 24/03/2021
Transcribed on : 24/03/2021
HHJ signed on : 24/03/2021
Page 2 of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
NM No.4877-2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Name of Stenographer
25.03.2021 1.44 p.m. ARUN ANNAMALAI MUDALIYAR
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Shri. R.S. PAVASKAR (CR 12)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGE-
MENT /ORDER
24.03.2021
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by
P.O. on
24.03.2021
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded
on
25.03.2021
Page 3 of 3
-- 3 of 3 --

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