Case Details

1                                      Exh.­89­Obst. 7 of 2009 IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI (BANDRA BRANCH) Obstructionist Notice No. 7 of 2009 in T.E. Suit No. 57/88 of 2008 Samyak Realties Private Limited .......... Plaintiffs V/s. Shri Maganlal Trikamdas Mayani ......... Defendant And Sharad Plastic Industries and others. .......Obstructionists Advocate Mr. Bharat K. Trivedi for plaintiffs. Advocate Ms. Hina A. Mody for Obstructionist Nos. 3 to 7. Coram: Shri B.L. Jogdand, Judge C.R.No. 32 Date:- 9th August, 2012 Order below Exhibit 89 1. Perused application, reply Exh. 91, rejoinder Exh. 92 and written submissions submitted on behalf of plaintiffs at Exh. 93. 2. Heard both sides. This is an application filed on behalf of obstructionist Nos. 4 to 7 to recast issues under Order 14 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 contending that they have raised defence on law point as well as on facts and prayed for framing of additional issues as mentioned in para 3 of the 2                                      Exh.­89­Obst. 7 of 2009 application. 3. The application is resisted on behalf of plaintiffs contending that additional issues framed by the court as per order dated 26.09.2011 will cover up the issues mentioned in para 3 of application of the Obstructionist Nos. 4 to 7. 4. After perusal of averments made by the Obstructionist No. 4 to 7 and reply of the plaintiffs, it appears that Issues which are framed as per Order dated 26.09.2011 will cover up the issues mentioned in the application. So, I have no hesitation to hold that it is not necessary to frame issues as prayed for by the Obstructionist Nos. 4 to 7 and proceed to pass the following order: ORDER 1. Application is rejected. 2. no order as to costs. ( B.L. Jogdand ) Judge C.R.No. 32 Date : 9th August, 2012 vvs

1                                      Exh.­11­TER 5/7 of 2012 IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI (BANDRA BRANCH) T.E. & R. Suit No. 5/7 of 2012 Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd. ............. Plaintiffs V/s. Tops Security Limited ............. Defendants Advocate Mr. Ghanshyam K. Trivedi for plaintiffs. Advocate Mr. Avdhesh M. Nathani/ Pinaz C. Contractor for Defendants. Coram: Shri B.L. Jogdand, Judge C.R.No. 32 Date:- 16th August, 2012 Order below Exhibit 11 1. Perused application, affidavit in support of application and reply Exh. 13. Heard both sides. 2. This is an application filed on behalf of defendants for condonation of delay which is caused in filing written statement contending that they require sufficient time for collecting documents from concern authorities and thats why they could not file their written statement within stipulated period. 3. The application is resisted on behalf of plaintiffs by denying all contentions raised in application. 2                                      Exh.­11­TER 5/7 of 2012 4. The plaintiffs have filed suit for eviction and recovery of possession against defendants. If, an opportunity to file written statement is not given to the defendants then it will amount that justice is denied to them. It is settled law that anyone should not be left unheard. Taking into consideration, said principle, I have no hesitation to allow the prayer of defendants. No doubt there is a fault on the part of defendant. It can be compensated by awarding cost. So, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER 1. Application stands allowed on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- 2. Delay caused in filing the written statement is hereby condoned. 3. The defendants shall deposit the cost amount in court or pay to plaintiff on or before next date. ( B.L. Jogdand ) Judge C.R.No. 32 Date:- 16th August, 2012 vvs