IN SUIT No. 3712 OF 1994 The Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai & Ors. v. Mrs.Yakuobeth & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
apparently passed exercise powers Order VIII Rule 10 Code Civil Procedure. Though specific reference provisions impugned order, apparent decreed - 2 - ground failure appellant/defendant written statement. The plaintiff thereupon directed evidence produce documents, any. The refers production 14 documents further records "in pleadings contained plaint documents, decreed. " Apparently, learned Single Judge ascertained whether pleaded plaint contents documents sufficient plaintiff entitle decree prayers plaint. The learned Court follow procedure provisions production documents record disposal absence written statement defendant. Obviously therefore, impugned order cannot be sustained.
This Court in number of decisions has matter disposed exercise powers Order VIII, Rule 10 passing a judgment a judgment satisfy requirements section 2(9) - 3 - Code of Civil Procedure. A reference can be made to the following decisions- Balraj Taneja & Anr. Vs. Sunil (i) Balraj Taneja & Anr. Vs. Sunil Balraj Taneja & Anr. Vs. Sunil (1999) 8 SCC & Anr., reported in (1999) 8 SCC MadanMadanMadan & Anr., (1999) 8 SCC & Anr.,
396.396. (ii) All All All Indian Indian Indian Central Central Central Bank Bank Bank Employees Employees Employees Congress, Congress, Congress, a a a trade Union & trade Union & trade Union & Ors. Ors. Ors. Vs. Vs. Vs. Central Central Central Bank Bank Bank India, India India reported 2007(3) 2007(3) 2007(3) AIR AIR AIR Bom. Bom. Bom. R. R. R.
214. 214. Unreported decision in : decision in : Unreported Unreported decision in : (iii) Municipal Corporation of Greater Municipal Corporation of Greater (iii) (iii) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. Vs. Azharali Anwarali & Ors. Vs. Azharali Anwarali Mumbai Mumbai & Ors. Vs. Azharali Anwarali Sambhalwala, delivered on 30-3-2007 in Sambhalwala, Sambhalwala, Appeal No. 152 of 2007 in Suit No.2302 of 1992. (iv) Pravinkumar Khimji Vs. Pravinkumar Khimji Vs. (iv) (iv) Pravinkumar Khimji Vs. Mrs. Mrs. Mrs. Kantilal alias Kalpana Kantilal & HansaHansaHansa Kantilal alias Kalpana Kantilal & Kantilal alias Kalpana Kantilal & Ors.,Ors.,Ors., delivered on 20-4-2007 in Appeal No. 761 of 1999 in Suit No. 3423 of
1991. (v)(v)(v) M/s. M/s. M/s. Sangatarash Sangatarash Sangatarash International International International & & & - 4 - Ors. Ors. Ors. Vs. Vs. Vs. Daulatram Daulatram Daulatram Chelaram Chelaram Chelaram Bakhru, Bakhru, Bakhru, delivered 3rd May 2007 Appeal (Lodging) No. 178 2007 Suit No. 1022
1984. 4) For the reasons stated above, therefore impugned cannot sustained liable matter remanded learned Single Judge matter accordance provisions law, bearing observations decisions referred above. Liberty appellant before learned Single Judge for filing written statement, if they so desire. 5) The amount already deposited in terms passed admission remain invested subject passed Suit No. 3712 1994 that regard. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- KHANDEPARKAR, J.] G. KARNIK, J.] [R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.] [D. G. KARNIK, J.] [R.M.S. [D. KHANDEPARKAR, J.] G. KARNIK, J.] [R.M.S. [D. Sd/-
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — r. 10.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 03 May 2007. The bench was KHANDEPARKAR ANDANDAND, D D D G KARNIK, G KARNIK.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.