Dismissed

Sambhavtirth Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. v. Vishwamangal Hsg. Co.Pvt,Ltd and Others.

Bombay HC5 Sept 2018S/398/1986

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay dismissed suit no.398 of 1986 for lack of prosecution. The court noted repeated adjournments due to late prosecution, misplaced allegations by counsel, and failure to admit documents despite issues being settled, concluding the plaintiff was not interested in prosecuting.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Sambhavtirth Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

17.S-398-1986.doc

¶2

1/2

¶3

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

¶4

SUIT NO.398 OF 1986

¶5

Sambhavtirth Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Limited

¶6

….Plaintiff

¶7

Vishwamangal Hsg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ….Defendants

¶8

Mr. Ankit Rajput I/b. Mr. Rutvij Bhatt for plaintiff. Mr. Vijayprakash Yadav for defendant nos.2A to 2F.

¶9

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATE : 5^th SEPTEMBER 2018

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1 Neither plaintiff nor advocates have shown any seriousness in

¶12

prosecuting this matter with diligence. This is an expedited suit and board

¶13

remark shows issues were framed on 20^th March 1998.

¶14

2 On 28^th July 2017 the following order came to be passed :

¶15

1. Mr.Tushar Bhavsar for plaintiffs states that he has recently been instructed in the matter since the earlier advocate has expired. Mr.Bhavsar requests some time to enable him to take full and complete instructions in the matter. Mr.Bhavsar also states that he has applied for certified copy of the record & proceedings on 24.7.2017. If certified copy is going to take time, registry to provide photo copies and in any event, within 4 weeks from today.

¶16

2. Stand over to 1.9.2017 for directions.

¶17

3 Strangely when the assignment changed on 1^st September

¶18

2017, plaintiff once again made a statement that they recently filed

¶19

Vakalatnama. The order dated 1^st September 2017 reads as under :

¶20

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

2. Advocate for the plaintiff submits that recently they filed Vakalatnama on behalf of plaintiff. Hence, he requires some time to go through the papers and take appropriate steps if necessary.

Gauri Gaekwad

17.S-398-1986.doc

2/2

3. On his request, matter is adjourned by four weeks.

¶26

4 It is quite clear that plaintiff's advocates misled the Court because the assignment changed by stating that they recently filed Vakalatnama and required time to go through the papers and take appropriate steps if necessary when they have said the same thing to the Court on 28^th July 2017 when the assignment was with another Judge. Mr. Rajput, counsel for plaintiff states that subsequently plaintiff has received copies of all documents from the registry. Mr. Rajput states that he does not remember the time when he got the documents but quite some time ago.

¶27

5 On 30^th January 2018 the following order came to be passed :

¶28

1. List the matter for admission and denial of documents on 28^th February 2018.

¶29

2. I am informed that issues are already settled. Parties will check whether the Affidavit of Evidence, Affidavit of Documents and a Compilation is on file. It is pointed out that the Suit is already an expedited Suit.

¶30

6 Even thereafter plaintiff has done nothing. Therefore, it is quite

¶31

obvious that plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.

¶32

7 Suit dismissed.

¶33

Digitally signed Gauri by Gauri AmitGaekwad Amit Date: Gaekwad 2018.09.0712:25:45 +0530

¶34

Gauri Gaekwad

Sambhavtirth Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. v. Vishwamangal Hsg. Co.Pvt,Ltd and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sambhavtirth Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. v. Vishwamangal Hsg. Co.Pvt,Ltd and Others.

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

M/S. Shreenathji Steel Yard Pvt.Ltd. Vs Karakal Varkey Varghese

Kulwant Singh Prehlad Singh Kohli Vs Amarpreet Kaur Chadha and Jitenderpal Singh S. Chadha

Ibex Integrated Business Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs Friends Paper Stores

M/S Omkar Gratings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Maharashtra Shetkari Sugar Ltd. Cin No. U15424MH2007PLC172811

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs the Official Liquidator High Court ,Mumbai

Mahamadhaniph Abdul Sayyad Vs the Official Liquidator of Patheja Brothers Forgings and Stamping Ltd.