Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Azim Anisha and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Sept 2015CHS/125/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application to set aside an order dismissing a suit under Rule 986 of the High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980, due to oversight. The plaintif was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 as donation to transfer the suit to the City Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 2.03.2005 setting aside suit dismissed under Rule 986 of High Court O.S. Rules 1980. Suit restored with plaintiff to pay Rs. 10,000 donation and case transferred to City Civil Court.

Bank of Baroda Vs Azim Anisha and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

954.s.817.2005.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 125 OF 2012

¶5

¶6

SUIT NO. 817 OF 2005

Bank of Baroda

.. Plaintiff

Vs.

Azim Anisha & Ors.

.. Defendants

Ms.Prachi Sawant i/b M.V. Kini & Co. for plaintiff.

¶13

None for defendants.

¶14

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATED : 15^TH SEPTEMBER, 2015

¶15

P.C.

¶16

1 This is an application to set aside an order dated 2.03.2005 passed by

¶17

the Prothonotary and Senior Master dismissing the suit under Rule 986 of the High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980. It is stated in the affidavit in support that the advocate who was looking after the matter left the plaintiff’s firm and the court clerk did not keep track of the above matter through oversight and therefore office objections were not removed within the stipulated period and the suit came to be dismissed on 02.03.2005. It is also stated that the advocate for the plaintiff took search of the above matter on the internet only on 20.12.2011 by which they came to know that the suit was dismissed

¶18

more than six years earlier. Nowhere in the affidavit has it been stated as to what the other advocate or the Partner of the firm were doing and why they

1/3

Shraddha Talekar PA

954.s.817.2005.doc

did not keep a check on the matter. Be that as it may, I am allowing the chamber summons and restoring the suit to file. At the same time, the plaintiff should be put to terms. The plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as donation to the Tata Memorial Hospital and Research Centre within two weeks. As the claim in the suit is for less than Rs.1 crore, the matter be transferred to City Civil Court, Mumbai. City Civil also to take cognizance of the matter only after being satisfied that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as directed above.

¶24

3 The chamber summons stands disposed accordingly.

¶25

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

2/3

Shraddha Talekar PA

954.s.817.2005.doc

CERTIFICATE

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed

¶32

Judgement/Order.

¶33

3/3

¶34

Shraddha Talekar PA

Bank of Baroda v. Azim Anisha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Azim Anisha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wockhardt Ltd. Vs T.A.I. Pharma Ltd.

Global Airport and Ground Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kingfisher Airlines Ltd.

Global Airport and Ground Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kingfisher Airlines Ltd.

Dr. Bhatia K. Jamnadas and 4 Ors. Vs Poonamchand N. Shah and 3 Ors.

Rajesh v. Choudhary Vs Kshitij R. Torka and Anr.

Bank of India Vs D.R.Chaturvedi and Ors.