Order 6

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: 1 Exh 14 in R.A.D. Suit No. 214/2021
CNR No. MHSCA30004072021
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT MUMBAI.
(BANDRA BRANCH)
Order Below Exhibit 14
In
R.A.D. Suit No. 214/2021
Ritesh Ramesh Desai s/o. Late Ramesh
Raghunath Desai
Plaintiff.
V/s.
M/s. Dolphin Build Home Defendant.
Shri Harsh T. Pawar, advocate for the plaintiff.
Shri Chandrabhan R. Yadav, advocate for the Defendant.
Coram : Shri B.T. Zirape, I/c. Judge.
C.R. No. 40 (B.B.)
Date : 23.06.2022.
Oral Order :
1) Perused the application and say of defendant.
Perused record and proceeding. Heard both the learned advocates
at length. This is an application filed by the defendant for setting
aside no reply order passed below Exh. 13 on 29.03.2022. It is
contended by the defendant that reply of application Exh. 13 was
made and confirmed by the defendant. However, the defendant
could not file it before the court as the presiding officer of this
court was on leave on 11.11.2021. The copy of said reply is
already served to the plaintiff. But the copy of said reply is not
produced on record.
-- 1 of 3 --
2 Exh 14 in R.A.D. Suit No. 214/2021
2) Matter was taken before the Incharge court by the
plaintiff without any notice to the defendant. The defendant was
unable to attend the matter at the relevant time. The defendant
has already served the reply on plaintiff. The defendant is ready
to produce reply on record. Finally, the defendant has requested
for grant of application.
3) The plaintiff resisted the application by filing say on
the backside of this application. It is contended by the plaintiff
that the advocate for the defendant has to file reply at the earliest
so as to enable the plaintiff to seek relief from the court in terms
of the transit rehabilitation of all tenants who are shelterless.
4) After hearing the rival submissions of parties, I have
gone through the record and proceeding of the present matter.
Present suit appears to be filed for declaration of tenancy rights.
The defendant has not filed copy of reply alongwith present
application. Today, the defendant produced the copies of reply on
record. However, the defendant has already served copy of reply
to the plaintiff. The defendant failed to file reply on record till
today. Therefore, no reply order was passed against the
defendant. The reply of defendant to the application Exh. 13 i.e.
injunction application will be helpful for deciding the real
controversy between the parties on merit. Therefore, considering
the reasons mentioned in the application, I am of the view that no
reply order passed against the defendant needs to be set aside in
the interest of justice. The defendant already served the copy of
reply to the plaintiff. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no
need to saddle any costs on defendant while granting the present
-- 2 of 3 --
3 Exh 14 in R.A.D. Suit No. 214/2021
application. In this view of the matter, I proceed to pass the
following order :
ORDER
1) The application is allowed as observed above.
2) The no reply order passed against the
defendant below Exh. 13 is hereby set aside in
the interest of justice.
3) Reply of defendant be taken on record.
(B.T. Zirape)
I/c. Judge.
Date : 23.06.2022. C.R. No. 40.(B.B.)
Order dictated on : 23.06.2022.
Order transcribed on : 23.06.2022.
Order checked & signed on : 23.06.2022.
/home/steno38/Desktop/CR38sgzfrom 2019/B.T.Zirape/NOTICES BTZ/Orders of CR40 as IC./Dolphin Build Home/21421RADExh14(set aside no reply to Inj apl)CR4023.6.22.odt
-- 3 of 3 --