Maganlal Savani andAND Anr. v. Smt. Lakshmi P. Chakravorthy and 4 Ors.
Bombay HCNMS/638/2015
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY
A compact analysis
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
229-NMS638-15.DOC
¶2
ATUL
¶3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 638 OF 2015
¶4
IN
¶5
SUIT NO. 3207 OF 2001
¶6
Maganlal Savani & Another…Plaintiffs
Versus
Smt. Lakshmi P. Chakravorty & Others…Defendants
¶7
Mr. Zain Mukhi, i/b Mr. H.V. Kode, for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Ankit Lohia, i/b Kadam & Co., for Defendant No. 3.
¶8
CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:11th July 2016
¶9
PC:-
¶10
1.This is the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion for leave to file
Additional Affidavit of Evidence. Ordinarily, no such Notice of
Motion would be either necessary or desirable. In this case, I rather
suspect that the Plaintiff No. 1 has brought this upon himself. I am
given to understand that he has filed three Affidavits of Evidence.
Even these are not sufficient to prove his documents. The
documents themselves are compiled in what is described to me
today as “two or more” compilations. The Plaintiff is 96 years old.
He will not be able to come to Court. At this stage, it is difficult to
see how these documents can be marked in this fashion. Yet, the
Coram
AI extract
G. S. Patel
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court