Dismissed

Veena Vijaykumar Oza v. M/S.Sharan Shelters Pvt.Ltd and 11 Ors.

Bombay HC19 Jun 2018NMA/143/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed an application to frame limitation as a preliminary issue despite it already being framed. The High Court dismissed the appeal, quashed the impugned order and directed the Single Judge to hear the Chamber Summons on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 25 October 2016 quashed; Chamber Summons No 633 of 2016 to be heard on merits; Notice of Motion dismissed.

Veena Vijaykumar Oza Vs M/S.Sharan Shelters… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

13app389-17-nma143-18.doc

¶2

¶3

pvr

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

APPEAL NO. 389 OF 2017 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 633 OF 2016

Veena Vijaykumar Oza

...Appellant

Versus

M/s.Sharan Shelters Pvt.Ltd And Ors.

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

with NOTICE OF MOTION NO.143 OF 2018

¶13

Mr.H.J.Thacker, Senior Advocate i/b. Eventa A.Gonsalves and Reyden L.Gonsalves, for the Appellant.

¶14

Mr.Samantaray with Mrs.Khyati Amit Kanani i/b.Kanani & Co., for Respondent No.3.

¶15

Mr.Vyom Shah with Mr.Sachin Mahagaonkar with Mr.J.Shah i/b. Divya Shah Associates, for Respondent no.1.

¶16

CORAM: NARESH H.PATIL AND G.S.KULKARNI, JJ

¶17

DATED: 19^th June, 2018

¶18

¶19

P.C.:

¶20

The appeal is directed against the order dated 25 October

¶21

2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Chamber Summons taken out in a suit.

¶22

pvr 2 13app389-17-nma143-18.doc

¶23

We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 25^th October,2016 and the order dated 9^th October,2016.

¶24

The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as the issue of limitation has already been framed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 9^th October,2015, there is no requirement in law and in facts to frame the said issue as a preliminary issue which was not a plea of the defendant in Chamber Summons no.633 of 2016 filed by the plaintiff for amendment of plaint. The learned Counsel further submits that there is no challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge framing the issue of limitation by the order dated 9^th October,2015.

¶25

The learned Counsel for the respondents supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant if the limitation issue is framed as a preliminary issue. The learned Counsel submits that he has filed a notice of motion in the year 2014 to consider the issue of limitation as preliminary issue.

¶26

Perused the impugned order and the record placed before us. We have considered the submissions advanced. We find that in the plaintiff's Chamber Summons for amendment, the defendant's prayer for

¶27

pvr 3 13app389-17-nma143-18.doc

¶28

framing issue of limitation as a preliminary one ought not to have been granted. The issue of limitation was already framed by the court by order dated 9/10/2015.

¶29

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant is right in his contention that there was no such application pending before the learned Single Judge in respect of grant of interim relief while the impugned order was passed.

¶30

We are of the view that the Chamber Summons for amendment is required to be heard and decided by the learned Single Judge on its own merits.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The appeal is allowed.

¶33

The impugned order dated 25 October 2016 is quashed and set aside.

¶34

Chamber Summons No.633 of 2016 be heard on its own merit.

¶35

All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶36

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending notice of motion no.143

¶37

of 2018 does not survive, it is disposed of.

¶38

(G.S.KULKARNI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Veena Vijaykumar Oza v. M/S.Sharan Shelters Pvt.Ltd and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veena Vijaykumar Oza v. M/S.Sharan Shelters Pvt.Ltd and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Rajendra Bhanudas Andhale Vs Shri Tanaji Satre

Shri Rajendra Bhanudas Andhale Vs Shri Tanaji Satre

Seven Star Estates (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs Jagdish R. Singh and 2 Ors.

Intouch Leather House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ishaan Overseas

Manjuben Chhaganlal Jogi Vs Ramniklal Amritlal Padia and 3 Ors.

Sairam Co-Operative Housing Society (Proposed) Vs Blue Diamond Construction Company and 7 Ors.