Bombay High Court
Prerana Arun Bandkar vs Pramod Dharmaji Bandkar on 17 September, 2025
Before : Anil H. Laddhad
Prothonotary and Senior Master
Date : 17th September, 2025
FOR RESTORATION :
1.
CHOL(L)/28863/2025 ) Ms. Aneesa Cheema a/w. Mr. Krishna Tiwari,
) Advocate for Applicant
IN S(L)/12857/2025 )
) Mr. Carl Patel a/w. Mr. Rajas Naik, Advocate for
)
) P.C. : The present Chamber Order is taken out by
) the Applicant for restoration of Suit (L) No. 12857
) of 2025 which has been dismissed under O.S.Rule
) 986, for non-removal of office objections.
)
) Ld. Advocate for Applicant tenders Affidavit of
) Service showing service of Chamber Order upon
) other side. The same is taken on record.
)
) Heard both the Ld. Advocates. Perused Chamber
) Order, Affidavit in support of Chamber Order and
) Affidavit in Reply on behalf of Defendant Nos.
) 1 to 4.
)
) It is the contention of Ld. Advocate for Applicant
) that Advocate has acted deligently, however, due to
) non availability of Court Clerk, office objections
) could not be removed within time. Hence, in the
) interest of justice, Suit may be restored.
)
Ld. Advocate for Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 tenders
)
Reply dated 17.09.2025. The same is taken on
)
record. The present Chamber Order is opposed by
)
Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 on the grounds mentioned in
)
the Reply, more particularly, on the sufficiency of
)
the reasons stated for non-removal of office
)
objections in the Suit.
)
)
Ld. Advocate for the Plaintiff argued that the
)
Advocate for Plaintiff acted deligently, however, due
)
to certain miscommunication, office objections
)
could not be removed within time. She further
)
submits that in the interest of justice, Plaintiff
)
should be given fair chance to present their case, as
)
.... 2
.... Continued Prothonotary and Senior Master
Date : 17th September, 2025
) Plaintiff is ready to pay costs.
)
) Ld. Advocate for Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, per contra,
) relied on Judgements of Apex Court (Rajneesh
) Kumar & Anr. v/s. Ved Prakash) in SLP No. 935-936
) of 2021 and argued that the entire blame has been
) thrown upon the Advocate, citing Para No. 10 of the
) said Order, which reads as under ;
) "10. It appears that the entire blame
) has been thrown on the head of the
) Advocate who was appearing for the
) Petitioners in the Trial Court. We have
) noticed over a period of time a tendency on
) the part of the litigants to blame their
) lawyers of negligence and carelessness in
) attending the proceedings before the Court.
) Even if we assume for a moment that the
) concerned lawyer was careless or negligent,
) this, by itself, cannot be ground to condone
) long and inordinate delay as the litigant
) owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights
) and is expected to be equally vigilant about
) the judicial proceedings pending in the court
) initiated at his instance. The litigant,
) therefore, should not be permitted to throw
) the entire blame on the head of the advocate
) and thereby disown him at any time and
) seek relief."
)
Ld. Advocate for Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 further
)
relied upon Judgment of Delhi High Court, in the
)
case of Gloria Chemicals Vs. R.K. Cables & Ors.
)
reported in 1987 SCC Online Del 209, which is also
)
on the similar line, reasons inefficiency of Advocate
)
is not available to the parties seeking condonation
)
of delay.
)
)
I have given thoughtful consideration to the
)
pleadings and arguments of Ld. Advocates for both
)
the parties.
)
.... 3
.... Continued Prothonotary and Senior Master
Date : 17th September, 2025
) It is to be noted that this Authority, by Order dated
) 06.08.2025 directed Plaintiff to remove office
) objections within a period of four weeks, failing
) Suit to be rejected under OS Rule 986. In the
) present Suit, Writ of Summons has not been issued
) to the parties. The Judgments relied by Ld.
) Advocate for Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 is with respect
) to condonation of delay in filing Appeal. Certainly,
) the ratio of these Judgments with respect to
) assigning sufficient cause can be applicable in the
) present case, but looking to the nature of
) proceedings and the fact that the Defendants were
) not served with Writ of Summons, in my view, at
) this stage, if the Suit is not restored, the Plaintiff
) will be thrown out of Court, resulting into
) miscarriage of justice. In my view, Plaintiff should
) be given a chance by restoring the Suit.
) Inconvinience, if any, caused to the Defendant Nos.
) 1 to 4 can be compensated by imposing reasonable
) cost on the Applicant. Hence, I proceed to pass
) following order ;
)
) The present Chamber Order is allowed and signed
) separately subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/-
) to Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and also payment of cost
) of Rs. 5000/- to 'The High Court Employees
) Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai' - Bank of India
) Mumbai (Main) Branch, Account No.
) 000120110001337, IFSC Code : BKID0000001,
) within three working days.
)
) Upon payment of cost, Suit be restored to its
) original file.
)
The Applicant to remove office objections on the
)
Suit and get the same registered and/or numbered
)
within two weeks from the date of restoration of
)
Suit, failing Suit to stand rejected for non-
)
compliance of office objections under O.S.Rule 986.
)
Date : 17.09.2025 Prothonotary & Senior Master
