Vasudeo V. Nemlekar Thr. P.O.A. Kochuputhenparampil Scaria James v. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Thr. Assistant Municipal Commissioner K/West Ward
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 382 OF 2024 rrpillai WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8776 OF 2024 Vasudeo V. Nemlekar through ...
Appellant/Applicant POA Kochuputhenparampil Scaria James Vs.
The Mumbai Municipal Corporation ...
Respondents through Assistant Municipal Commissioner K/West Ward Mr. Rajendra Pai, Senior Counsel a/w. Ms. Prapti Karkera and Prajakta Shringapure for the Appellant/Applicant. Mr. Narendra V. Walawalkar a/w. Mr. Om Suryavanshi for the Respondent - BMC.
Mr. Sandesh Jadhav, Asstt. Engineer (B & F).
Mr. Prakash Mhatre, Sub-Engineer (Maintainence) CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE :
7th FEBRUARY 2025 ORDER :
1.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant on instructions seeks leave to withdraw the appeal with a request that it may be clarified that the observation in the impugned order should not affect the merits of the trial in the suit. He submits that the suit be decided on by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date:
2025.02.11 01:30:42 +0200 RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI 1/3
its own merits uninfluenced by the observations in the impugned order. He further submits that it may also be clarified that the trial should proceed denovo.
2.
In paragraph 18 of the impugned order the learned judge has already clarified that the suit will have to be restored for trial afresh. Hence, I do not see any impediment to clarify as requested by the learned senior counsel. Learned senior counsel for the corporation has no objection for this clarification if the appeal from order is withdrawn.
3.
It is clarified that as observed by the learned Judge in the impugned order the suit shall be tried denovo. The suit shall be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations in the impugned order. It is further clarified that all contentions of all the parties on merits are kept open.
4.
Leave granted. Appeal is disposed of as withdrawn, with the aforesaid clarification.
5.
Since the suit is of the year 2007, it is expected that the trial court shall decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. The parties shall not be granted any unnecessary adjournments. 6.
Appeal from order is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 2/3
7.
In view of the disposal of the appeal, interim application is disposed of as infructuous.
[GAURI GODSE, J.] 3/3