Mrs. Sulochana Dilip Lomte vs Rajani Chandrakant Madkar
2022 Latest Caselaw 3605 Bom

                                                                                36 WP-526-2021.doc

BDP-SPS-TAC


 BHARAT
 DASHARATH
 PANDIT                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 Digitally signed by
 BHARAT
 DASHARATH
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 PANDIT
 Date: 2022.04.05
 17:25:29 +0530                          WRIT PETITION NO. 526 OF 2021

                       Mrs. Sulochana Dilip Lomte                        ... Petitioner.
                                  V/s
                       Rajani Chandrakant Madkar
                       and Ors.                                          ... Respondents.

                       Mr. Pramod M. Patil a/w Shyamsundar Solanke a/w Komal Mestry i/b
                       PNP Associates for the Petitioner.
                       Mr. S.S. Wagh a/w Vijaykumar Dighe a/w Raj Shah for Respondent
                       Nos. 1 and 2.

                                            CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                                             DATE:    APRIL 04, 2022

                       P.C.:-

                       1]       Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner.


                       2]       Issue notice to Respondents, returnable on 4th July, 2022.


                       3]       Mr. Wagh, learned Counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of
                       Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.


                       4]       Contentions are, in view of Division Bench Judgment of this

Court in the matter of Nola Jonathan Ranbhise vs. Union of India reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 240, the proceedings were not maintainable even before the Trial Court, so also the appeal and that being so, Court below committed an error of jurisdiction while passing

36 WP-526-2021.doc

the order impugned, thereby permitting withdrawal of the suit under Order XXIII.

5] The claim is resisted by the Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that since the proceedings at the very threshold were not maintainable, same can even be permitted to be withdrawn by this Court even if appeal is held to be not maintainable.

6] The said proposition is objected by Mr. Patil on the ground that once there is adjudication which is invited by the Respondents, Respondents are not entitled to claim leave under Order XXIII as is allowed vide impugned order.

7] The case for consideration is made out.

8] Matter be posted on 4th July, 2022 for final disposal at admission stage.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )