Partly allowed

Mr.Abdul Hameed Khan Matwan v. Mr. Shabbir Ahmad S. Khan, Thr.Prop.M/S.Alsiraj Builders and Developers

Bombay HC4 Feb 2019RPA/3/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court amended a prior order describing suit status from 'recording of evidence' to 'framing of issues' due to counsel's inadvertent submission and extended suit disposal timeline by six months.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 14.01.2019 modified; words 'for recording of evidence' changed to 'for framing of issues'; time limit extended by six months.

Mr.Abdul Hameed Khan Matwan Vs Mr. Shabbir Ahmad S. Khan, Thr.Prop.M/S.Alsiraj Builders and Developers — Bombay HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Dixit

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

REVIEW PETITION NO.3 OF 2019 IN

¶4

APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) NO.33708 OF 2018

¶5

Abdul Hameed Khan Matwan .… Petitioner V/s. Shabbir Ahmed S. Khan …. Respondent

¶6

Mr. Mahendra M. Agavekar for the Petitioner.

¶7

Ms. Siddhi Bhosale for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J. DATE : 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2019.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and for the Respondent.

¶11

This Petition is filed for review of the order dated 14^th January 2019 passed by this Court.

¶12

It is submitted that, in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the Respondent that the Suit is already fixed for recording of evidence and evidence affidavit of the Respondent-Plaintiff is filed on record, this Court has directed to decide the Suit as expeditiously as possible, instead of deciding this Appeal on merits.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Appellant points out to the 'Daily Sheet' of the Trial Court to show that, even 'Issues' are also not framed as on

¶14

1/2

¶15

RPA-3-19.doc

¶16

today and, therefore, the submission made, on that day, by learned counsel for the Respondent was not correct.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Respondent fairly concedes that the said submission was made, inadvertently, on the basis of the instructions received from the client and she may be excused for the same.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Appellant fairly submits that, as the hearing of the Suit is already expedited, he is not pressing for modification of the said order, except for the aforesaid correction.

¶19

Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed to this limited extent. The order dated 14^th January 2019 is modified only in respect of paragraph No.2, wherein it was stated that,

¶20

“The Suit is already fixed for recording of evidence and the evidence affidavit of the Respondent-Plaintiff is filed on record.”

¶21

The words “for recording of evidence” mentioned in the aforesaid paragraph stands corrected to read as “for framing of issues” .

¶22

Accordingly, the time-limit for expeditious disposal of the Suit is extended by a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶23

Review Petition stands disposed off in the above terms.

¶24

Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶25

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]

¶26

2/2

¶27

RPA-3-19.doc

Mr.Abdul Hameed Khan Matwan v. Mr. Shabbir Ahmad S. Khan, Thr.Prop.M/S.Alsiraj Builders and Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Abdul Hameed Khan Matwan v. Mr. Shabbir Ahmad S. Khan, Thr.Prop.M/S.Alsiraj Builders and Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Nasir Mohammed Umar Cao. Farid Ahmed Abdul Sami Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Mohammed Nasir Mohammed Umar Cao. Farid Ahmed Abdul Sami Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Mr. Dinkar Maruti Choudhary Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thr. Asst.Municipal Commissioner

Hiten Dalal Vs C.B.I

M/S. Amarpratik Builderws Private Limited Vs Mr. Siddharth Dilipkumar Shah and Ors.

Mr. Paul Varghese Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.