Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: Order below Exh.6 and 7 1 IN SU NO.01/2020
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI.
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT 6 AND 7
IN
L.C. SUIT NO.01 OF 2020
Mrs. Vidya Vijay Palande ]… Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ]...Defendant
Adv. S.K. Bhosale for the Plaintiff
Adv. Tondwalkar for defendant /MCGM.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
Shri S.D.Kulkarni
(Court Room no.8)
DATED : 8th December, 2021
O R A L O R D E R
1. Both these applications filed by the plaintiff for
continuation of earlier order passed by this court on 02.01.2020.
2. Perused the applications and say. Heard both the advocates
at length.
3. The contention of the applicant / plaintiff that protection
was given to him on 02.01.2020 be continued. So roznama shows that
on 22.01.2020 the Junior Engineer of defendant / corporation was
present before the court and he submitted that “he has received new
reply with compilation of documents from the plaintiff. After
verification of documents and considering the reply they will pass the
-- 1 of 3 --
Order below Exh.6 and 7 2 IN SU NO.01/2020
fresh speaking order regarding the notice structure”. Therefore, the
earlier order was continued till passing of the speaking order by the
defendant.
4. The roznama further speaks that if the speaking order goes
against the plaintiff, one week time is granted. So it shows that the
earlier interim protection given to the plaintiff was till passing of fresh
speaking order. It is a matter of record that on 31.08.2020 fresh
speaking order was passed. The said order is against the plaintiff
therefore plaintiff has carried out the amendment in his pleading. So as
per order dated 02.01.2020 and 22.01.2020, there is no earlier
protection / order in favour of the plaintiff, as new speaking order
passed by the defendant and the said speaking order goes against the
plaintiff. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for continuation of earlier
order as only one week time was granted to the plaintiff after passing of
the speaking order. Therefore, in my opinion application is not tenable
and devoid of merit. Considering this I pass, the following order :
ORDER
1. Application Exh.6 and 7 stands rejected.
(S.D.Kulkarni)
Ad-hoc Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date : 08.12.2021 Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 08.12.2021
Transcribed on : 08.12.2021
Signed by HHJ on: 08.12.2021
-- 2 of 3 --
Order below Exh.6 and 7 3 IN SU NO.01/2020
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 03.00 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. J.S. Chavan
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room no.)
HHJ Shri. S.D.Kulkarni
C.R. no.08
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
08.12.2021
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
08.12.2021
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
10.12.2021
-- 3 of 3 --