Defendants appealed an order allowing the plaintiff to pay costs. The court noted the plaintiff had paid the amount and removed objections. The appeal was rejected with no costs awarded. (High Court of Judicature at Bombay)
The appeal in the review petition filed by the defendants is accordingly rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
.. 1 .. 6-RPL-4/14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY .
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.4 OF 2014 IN CHAMBER ORDER (L) NO.526 OF 2013 IN SUIT NO.790 OF 2013
Ramesh Shobhraj Manwani ... Plaintiff V/s. Meena Mohan Manwani & Ors. ... Defendants
Mr Navin Lund i/b M/s Meghraj & Associates for the plaintiff. Mr S. V. Mehta i/b Malvi Ranchoddas & Co. for defendants.
CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA J. DATED : APRIL 04 , 2014.
P.C.
The defendants have filed an appeal under Section 133 of the High Court (Original Side) Rules 1980 against the order dated 11th February 2014 passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master reviewing his own order dated 25th October 2013 allowing the plaintiff to pay the costs of Rs.2000/- within two weeks from the date of the said order along with additional costs of Rs.2000/- in respect of the review petition.
1/2
Asmita
.. 2 .. 6-RPL-4/14
( R.D.DHANUKA, J.)
2/2
Asmita
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Prothonotary & Senior Master's order allowing the plaintiff to pay costs should be interfered with in a review appeal filed by the defendants.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramesh Shobhraj Manwani
Meena Mohan Manwani
Ors.
R.D. DHANUKA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
