Order 6

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: : 1 :
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI
(Bandra Branch)
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT – 26
IN
L. E. & C. SUIT NO. 16 OF 2023
[ CNR No.:- MHSCA3-000188-2023 ]
1. Mr. Alok Yudhister Nangia & Anr. … Plaintiffs
Versus
Mr. Vishal B. Sonawane … Defendant
Mr. Jikesh Shah, Ld. advocate for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Dinesh R. Pandey, Ld. advocate for the Defendant.
Coram : Smt. Nutan S. Saraf
Judge, C.R. No. 40,
Date : 20th March, 2024.
:: ORDER ::
This is an application filed by defendant for hearing of the
Exhibit-23 be stayed till pending hearing and final disposal of the
Revision application.
2. By this application defendant submitted that plaintiffs filed
the suit against him for eviction and for recovery of the compensation
and on grounds more particularly mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiff
filed the application for depositing compensation i.e. Exhibit 11 and
the said application was allowed by the Hon’ble Trial Court vide order
dated 4th October, 2023. The revision application is filed by him
challenging the order of this court dated 4th October, 2023. The
direction given by the trial court for depositing compensation in nature
-- 1 of 3 --
: 2 :
of damages and are therefore under challenge in the Revision
application. He has further submitted that plaintiffs filed application for
striking down defenses on 6th December, 2023, for non-compliance of
the order dated 4th October 2023. The plaintiffs are pressing for orders
on the said application, despite pendency of the revision application and
therefore it is just, proper, necessary and in the interest of justice that
pending hearing and final disposal of the revision application hearing of
the Exhibit No.23 be stayed. The revision was lodged in the month of
December, 2023, however due to exigencies of E-filing the revision
application was numbered in the month of January, 2024. Defendant
has already filed reply to the application of the plaintiffs for striking out
defences. Hence, prayed that the aforesaid revision is pending in this
court challenging the order dated 4th October, 2023 and therefore to
meet the ends fo justice, hearing of the Exhibit 23 be stayed.
3. On the other hand plaintiff objected the present application
and contended that there is no provision in law under which his
application can be stayed only because revision is filed by defendant.
There is no stay granted by Hon’ble Appeal Court. The amount of more
than Rs.3,75,00,000/- is due from defendant as has not paid single
penny and is occupying premises admeasuring 4000 sq.ft free of charge.
Hence, prayed application be dismissed with heavy compensatory cost.
4. It has been argued by Ld. Advocate for applicant that he
preferred revision against the order passed by this court date
04/10/2023. Before Hon’ble Revision Court the matter kept pending for
argument on 05/04/2024. Therefore, he prayed for stay of application
vide Exh.23 till hearing and final disposal of Revision Application.
-- 2 of 3 --
: 3 :
5. Per contra Ld. Advocate for plaintiff argued that there is no
provision to stay the application vide Exh.23 because Revision is filed by
defendant. No stay granted by Hon’ble Revision Court. The amount is
more than Rs.3,75,00,000/- is due from the defendant and he did not
pay any amount out of it and occupying the commercial premises
without any license fee. Hence, prayed to reject this application.
6. I considered the argument advanced by both sides. Perusal
the proceeding. It is admitted on record that the application vide Exh.23
for striking off defense of defendant is pending argument. The Ld.
Advocate for defendant seeks stay for the application vide Exh.23. As on
today there is no stay order passed by the Hon’ble Revision Court
against the order vide Exh.11 dated 04/10/2023. It is on record that the
defendant neither compiled the order passed vide Exh.11 dated
04/10/2023 nor paid certain portion of amount for said comply. Under
such circumstances, I am not inclined to grant stay for the application
vide Exh.23. The application devoid of merits liable to be refused.
Hence, considering the discussion made above, I proceed to pass
following order :-
:: O R D E R ::
1. Application (Exh.26) is rejected.
2. Both parties to take note of this order.
3. Cost in cause.
( Nutan S. Saraf )
Date: 20/03/2024. Judge, C.R. No. 40
Order dictated & Typed on : 20/03/2024.
Order checked & signed on : 20/03/2024.
-- 3 of 3 --