Sunil Kumar Kapur S/o Rajkumar KapurVsSushil Rajkumar Kapur And Ors

Date: 17-01-2019
Business: Plaintiff with Adv. S.P. Kanuga present and seeks further time to file evidence of plaintiff.
None for defendant.
Kept back. Later on at 1.45 pm. Adv. Ms. Chandnani for plaintiff present and states that cost is paid as per order dated 26.11.2018.
Kept back in second session for evidence and NM.
Later on in second session. Adv. Ms. Munim for D-1 present and tendered original notice of motion no. 4693/2018 alongwith affidavit. Adv. Ms. Panchal for D- 2,4,8 and 9 present.
Kept back. Later on at 4.00 pm. Adv. Ms. Chandnani for plaintiff present and filed VP on behalf of plaintiff. She also filed affidavit of evidence and list of documents. Copy served to other side just now. Adv. Ms. Munim for D-1 present. Adv. Ms. Panchal for D- 2,4,8 and 9 present. Heard both parties in NM no.4693/2018.
This notice of motion is filed by D-1 for modification of order dated 25.11.2016 whereby the plaintiff and D-1 to 4 were directed to give surety amount of Rs.5 lacs in lieu of the order passed in that notice of motion. It is pointed out by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 that the plaintiff had not made any such prayer in notice of motion no. 3475/2016. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and D-2,4, 8 and 9 submit that they have no objection to allow the present notice of motion.
A perusal of the notice of motion  no. 3475/2016 shows that it was filed by the plaintiff for appointment of Court Receiver and Commissioner to visit the suit property in order to prepare the list of tenants and occupants. By order dated 25.11.2016, my ld. Predecessor allowed the said notice of motion and appointed Court Receiver on the suit property. Various directions were given to Court Receiver and D-1 was permitted to act as an Agent to the Court Receiver. On hearing the parties and perusing the record, it appears that the direction given in the said order to give surety amount of Rs.5 lac was not warranted. It was even prayed in the notice of motion.
Pendency of testamentary suit in respect of Will cannot be a reason to give direction for surety. In any case, the order is being modified by consent of plaintiff and D-2,4,8 and 9. It is made clear that the direction to give surety is being removed at the risk and the consequences to be suffered by the consenting parties.
Accordingly notice of motion no. 4693/2018 is allowed to aforesaid extent and disposed of.
Nature Of Disposal: ALLOWED
Disposal Date: 17-01-2019

Main Case No: SUIT/0103831/2011
Main Cnr: MHCC010043892011
Main Filing No: 111447

Filing Number: 116460/2018
Filing Date: 13-12-2018
First Hearing Date: 17th January 2019
Decision Date: 17th January 2019
Court Number And Judge: 3-COURT 03  ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE