Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: .. 1 ..
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI
(BANDRA BRANCH)
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT – 13
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 34 of 2022
(CNR No. :- MHSCA3-000321-2022)
IN
R.A.E. SUIT NO. 336/723 OF 2010
1. Shri Vinaykumar P. Sadh and Ors. ... Plaintiffs
Versus
Mr. Chiranjilal Gunaram Sharma (deleted)
through legal heirs
1. Shri Avinash Chiranjilal Sharma and Anr. ... Defendants
Mr. Shravan Vyas, Ld. Advocate for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Jayesh Patel, Ld. Advocate for the Defendants.
Coram :- R. N. Bansal, Judge
C. R. No. 36 [B.B.]
Date :- 22/11/2022
ORDER :
This is an application filed by defendant no. 2 for
permission to file reply to the Execution Application.
2. Perused application and say filed by the plaintiff. Heard.
Perused record.
3. It is submitted by defendant no. 2 that, somewhere in the
year 2008 the suit premises was declared as slum, which has been
challenged upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the said
slum declaration order was confirmed. However, the plaintiff
/home/steno36/RNB/Orders/Exh. 13 Exe. Application 34 of 2022. permission to file reply. 22.11.2022.odt KCP
-- 1 of 3 --
.. 2 .. EXH-13 Exe. Application No. 34 of 2022
again challenged said slum declaration order before the
Competent Authority and obtained order, which the defendant had
further challenged before the Hon’ble High Court via Writ Petition
No. 17493 of 2022, which kept for hearing. The aforesaid facts are
required to consider in the present application before granting any
order in favour of the applicant. The affidavit in reply to the main
application is ready. Therefore it is prayed that, defendant no. 2
may be permitted to file the affidavit in reply to the Execution
Application.
4. The plaintiffs have filed say at overleaf and submitted
that, there is no stay against the present execution application. The
contents of the application are not the subject matter/issue of
present execution application. Hence application should be
rejected with cost.
5. On perusal of record it appears that, in the present
Execution Application the Court has not yet passed order. Though
defendant no. 2 has not stated any reason, however it cannot be
ignored the settled principle of law that, the substantial justice
should not be defeated by any procedural technicalities. The reply
of defendant no. 2 is taken on record it will help the Court to
execute decree. Even if the present application is allowed it will not
cause any prejudice to the plaintiff. Therefore the application of
defendant no. 2 deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following
order :
ORDER
1. The application is allowed.
/home/steno36/RNB/Orders/Exh. 13 Exe. Application 34 of 2022. permission to file reply. 22.11.2022.odt KCP
-- 2 of 3 --
.. 3 .. EXH-13 Exe. Application No. 34 of 2022
2. Both parties to take note.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court.)
(R. N. Bansal)
Date : 22/11/2022 Judge, C.R. No. 36
Order dictated on : 22/11/2022
Order checked and signed on : 22/11/2022
/home/steno36/RNB/Orders/Exh. 13 Exe. Application 34 of 2022. permission to file reply. 22.11.2022.odt KCP
-- 3 of 3 --