Revision Application reply before Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Tribunal.
In the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai.
Interim Application No. of 2004.
In
Revision Application No. of 2004.
ABC and Anr. ) … Applicants. Org. Disputants.
Versus
Nalanda Apna Ghar Unit No. 2 Co-operative … Org. Opponents
I, Sanjeev Jaiswal, being the _________________________ on behalf of the Applicant abovenamed, do hereby state, on solemn affirmation, as under:
- I say that the applicants have filed the above revision application against the order dated 6th November 2003 passed by Her Honour Judge Smt. V. B. Kulkarni while presiding in Court Room No. IV whereunder she passed an order.
- I say that the grounds in Revision Application clearly shows that the said order is not sustainable in law as looking to the fact of the case. I say that the impugned order is passed in gross violation of provision of Civil Procedure Code, which has the consequence of vitiating the entire trial. I crave leave to refer to and to rely upon the grounds of revision application.
- I say that by adopting the procedure of recording evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, the learned trial judge has committed serious violation of provision of law.
- I say that unless and until this Honourable Court decides as to whether Order 18 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable or Order 18 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure will apply, it is necessary that further proceeding is required to be stayed.
- I say that the stay of further proceedings is required to be granted in view of serious procedural defect by which the recording evidence is proceeding now. I say that unless this Honourable Court stays the proceeding before the Honourable Court, the learned trial judge will continue with the matter causing serious prejudice to the applicants.
- I therefore submit that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper and in the interest of justice that further hearing in the above suit be stayed. I say that serious injustice and prejudice will be caused if the further trial is not stayed. I say that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the trial is stayed.
- I, therefore, pray:
- That during the pendency and final hearing of the revision application, the further hearing of TE & R Suit No.461.486 of 2001 be stayed;
- That urgent ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) above be granted;
- That such other and further reliefs be granted to the applicant as this Honourable Court deem fit and proper;
Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai on ……