[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Romesh Satyanarayan Sharma vs Mrs. Swaran Singh Chawla And Ors on 16 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:17872
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 77 OF 2021
Romesh Satyanarayan Sharma }
Sand Sadan, 10, Union Park, Age- 68 }
Pali Hill, Khar (West), }
Mumbai-400 052. } .. Appellant
V/s.
1. Mrs. Swaran Singh Chawla }
Sand Sadan, 10, Union Park, }
Pali Hill, Khar (West), }
Mumbai-400 052. }
2. Mr. Parvinder Singh }
Sand Sadan, 10, Union Park, }
Pali Hill, Khar (West), }
Mumbai-400 052. }
3. Mrs. Anju W/o Dilip Singh Nagpal }
KC-45-C, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, }
Near Water Tank, }
New Delhi - 110052 }
4. Miss. Sheetal Sandeep Sawney }
Sand Sadan, 10, Union Park, }
Pali Hill, Khar (West), }
Mumbai-400 052. }
AMOL
PREMNATH
JADHAV
Digitally signed by
5. Ms. Disha Sandeep Sawney }
AMOL PREMNATH
JADHAV Sand Sadan, 10, Union Park, }
Date: 2026.04.16
20:01:52 +0530
Pali Hill, Khar (West), }
Mumbai-400 052. }
6. Mr. Harcharan Singh Natha Singh }
Chawla }
Page 1 of 21
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2026 20:45:36 :::
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
Sand Sadan, 10, Union Park, }
Pali Hill, Khar (West), }
Mumbai-400 052. }
7. Mr. Jasbir Singh Natha Singh }
Chawla }
Sand Sadan, 10, Union Park, }
Pali Hill, Khar (West), }
Mumbai-400 052. } .. Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1898 OF 2019
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 77 OF 2021
Romesh Satyanarayan Sharma .. Applicant
In the matter between
Romesh Satyanarayan Sharma .. Appellant
V/s.
Mrs. Swaran Singh Chawla & Ors. .. Respondents
______________________________________
Mr. Salil Shah a/w Mr. Hemang Engineer i/b Mr. Jitendra Shukla for
Appellant.
Mr. Mutahhar Khan a/w Mr. Duj Jain, Mr. Rajan Yadav, Mr. Yash Jalandria,
Soham Bhagwat i/b Kiran Jain & Co. for Respondents.
_______________________________________
CORAM : FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.
RESERVED ON : 08th APRIL 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 16th APRIL 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Appeal impugns an order dated 13 th September
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
2019 (impugned order) passed by the Trial Court dismissing Chamber
Summons No. 701 of 2015 taken out by the Appellant/ Plaintiff in S.C. Suit
No. 68 of 1987 in which he had sought setting aside the abatement of the
suit and condonation of delay in preferring the said application for bringing
the heirs and legal representatives of Natha Singh Sant Singh Chawla
(Defendant No. 1) on record. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are the heirs and legal
representatives of Defendant No. 1.
2. By the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the Chamber
Summons with costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable by the Appellant to the
contesting Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 by recording a finding that the Appellant
had approached the Court with unclean hands and by making a false
statement on oath. The Trial Court held that despite being aware that
Defendant No. 1 had passed away more than 24 years ago ( viz. on 29th
October 1990) and despite being fully aware of his heirs and legal
representatives, the Appellant failed to implead them. As a result, the Trial
Court held that the suit stood abated and no case had been made out for
setting aside the abatement.
FA C T S O F T H E C A S E
3. It is necessary to set out a few relevant facts that are required to
be considered by this Court whilst deciding the present Appeal. They are set
out hereunder:
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
(i) S.C. Suit No. 68 of 1987 was instituted by the Plaintiff seeking a
declaration that he is the owner of 2/3rd undivided share in the
suit property being Plot No. 10 together with building known as
'Sant Sadan' standing thereon, situate at Pali Hill, Khar, Mumbai
400052 with Defendant No. 1 being the owner of the remaining
1/3rd share therein. The Plaintiff also sought partition of the suit
property and other ancillary reliefs therein.
(ii) The Plaintiff has claimed ownership of the said 2/3rd undivided
share in the suit property under a deed of conveyance dated 7 th
October 1981 stated to have been executed in his favour by
Defendant Nos. 2 and 3.
(iii) Disputes arose between the parties which led to various suits
being filed by them against each other in respect of the suit
property including inter alia, R.A.D. Suit No. 6835 of 1980 filed
by the Plaintiff in the Small Causes Court at Mumbai; S.C. Suit
No. 5690 of 1981 filed by Defendant No. 1 in the Bombay City
Civil Court; S.C. Suit No. 2097 of 2011 filed by the Plaintiff in
the Bombay City Civil Court; L.E. & C Suit No. 7/8 of 1983 filed
by Defendant No. 1 in the Small Causes Court at Mumbai, etc.
(iv) In the meanwhile, Defendant No. 1 - Mr. Natha Singh Sant
Singh Chawla passed away on 29th October 1990.
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
(v) Acknowledging this, in the said R.A.D. Suit No. 6835 of 1980,
the Plaintiff is stated to have filed Interlocutory Notice No. 1750
of 1991 on 12th April 1991 to implead the heirs and legal
representatives of the deceased Defendant No. 1 on record
before the Small Causes Court. Thereafter, the parties are also
stated to have acted upon the demise of Defendant No. 1 in
some of the other suits, as more particularly reflected in orders
passed therein, from time to time, including inter alia, order
dated 11th September 1992 passed in S.C. Suit No. 5690 of
1981, order dated 31st July 1992 passed in Suit No. 4818 of
1992, etc.
(vi) As a result, since about 1991, the Plaintiff is stated to have had
knowledge of the demise of Defendant No. 1 and also
information/details of his heirs and legal representatives.
However, despite this, no amendment in that regard was made
by the Plaintiff in S.C. Suit No. 68 of 1987 until 2013.
(vii) In January 2013, the Plaintiff preferred Chamber Summons No.
250 of 2013 for setting aside the abatement of the suit and
condonation of delay in preferring the said application for
bringing the heirs and legal representatives of Defendant No. 1 -
Mr. Natha Singh Sant Singh Chawla and impleading three
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
persons viz. (i) Gurucharan Singh Natha Singh Chawla (ii)
Harcharan Singh Natha Singh Chawla (iii) Jasbir Singh Natha
Singh Chawla, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 therein in his place and
stead.
(viii) Interestingly, in the affidavit in support dated 15th January 2013
filed by the Plaintiff, despite setting out the various litigation
between the parties, he has not disclosed the exact date on
which he is stated to have learnt about the demise of Defendant
No. 1. Instead, he has deposed that:
"7) ......I say that the Plaintiff was never aware about the
death of the deceased Defendant No. 1 till the hearing of
the application in Suit No. 1711 of 1994 Before the Hon'ble
High Court and the intervention of the Respondents therein
in person to oppose the reliefs to be granted to them. I say
that the Plaintiff as well as the CA both were lodged in Tihar
Jail and could not remain present Before the Hon'ble High
Court...".
(ix) The said Chamber Summons No. 250 of 2013 was vehemently
opposed by the said Respondents. In the meanwhile, Mr.
Gurucharan Singh Natha Singh Chawla - Respondent No. 1 to
the said Chamber Summons No. 250 of 2013 passed away on 8 th
October 2013.
(x) As a result, the Plaintiff took out a separate Chamber Summons
on 11th March 2015 being Chamber Summons No. 701 of 2015.
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
By an order of the same date, the earlier Chamber Summons
bearing no. 250 of 2013 was disposed of as 'not pressed'.
(xi) However, in Chamber Summons No. 701 of 2015, the Plaintiff
arrayed the heirs and legal representatives of late Gurucharan
Singh Natha Singh Chawla as Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and
Harcharan Singh Natha Singh Chawla and Jasbir Singh Natha
Singh Chawla - Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 therein, without
seeking the other reliefs (of condonation of delay, setting aside
of abatement, etc. that were sought in Chamber Summons No.
250 of 2013).
(xii) As a result, on 13th October 2015, the Plaintiff took out yet
another Chamber Summons bearing no. 1926 of 2015 to amend
the Schedule (of amendment) of Chamber Summons No. 701 of
2015 to include the other reliefs therein. In this amendment, the
Plaintiff also sought deletion of the names of Defendant Nos. 2
and 3 (who had passed away on 12 th January 1995 and 9th
September 2011 respectively) from the cause-title of the suit
without seeking to implead their heirs and legal representatives.
(xiii) Both these Chamber Summonses came to be vehemently
opposed by the Respondents. By an order dated 12 th April 2019,
the Trial Court allowed Chamber Summons No. 1926 of 2015
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
permitting the Plaintiff to amend the Schedule (of amendment)
of Chamber Summons No. 701 of 2015.
(xiv) In the affidavit in support of the said Chamber Summons No.
701 of 2015, there is no averment which discloses the exact date
on which the Plaintiff is stated to have learnt about the demise
of Defendant No. 1.
(xv) However, in the amended affidavit in support, the Plaintiff has
added that:
"4A) I say that I came to know about the demise of the
Defendant No. 1 in the year 2011/2012 when the Plaintiff
herein had filed a Suit bearing No. 2097 of 2011 before the
Hon'ble City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Goregaon, Bombay,
whereat the Advocate for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 herein
had intimated that the Defendant No. 1 had expired since
long back, however, the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 had failed
to comply with the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10A of
C.P.C.1908...".
(xvi) By the impugned order dated 13th September 2019, the Trial
Court dismissed the Chamber Summons on several grounds,
namely:
(a) the Plaintiff had filed the said Chamber Summons No. 701
of 2015 on a false basis and by making a false statement
that liberty was granted to him to file a fresh Chamber
Summons whilst the earlier Chamber Summons No. 250
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
of 2013 was disposed of, when no such liberty was given
by the Court as per order dated 11th March 2015;
(b) from the documents of various judicial proceedings filed
by the Respondents, the earliest of which was an affidavit
dated 12th April 1991 filed by the original Plaintiff in
Interlocutory Notice No. 1750 of 1991 in R.A.D. Suit No.
6835 of 1980, it is revealed that he had full knowledge
not only of the demise of Defendant No. 1 but also of his
heirs and legal representatives and as a result, the
statement made by the Plaintiff on oath that he came to
know of the demise of Defendant No. 1 only in
2011/2012 was totally false;
(c) despite knowledge of the above, the Plaintiff deliberately
failed to bring the heirs and legal representatives of
deceased Defendant No. 1 on record in the suit;
(d) the suit abated on account of the fact that the Plaintiff
failed to bring the heirs and legal representatives of the
deceased Defendant No. 1 on record, within the timelines
prescribed in Articles 120 and 121 of the Limitation Act,
1963;
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
(e) the reasons given by the Plaintiff for seeking the reliefs
sought in the said Chamber Summons were absolutely
false and he had come to Court with unclean hands which
prompted the Trial Court to impose costs of Rs. 10,000/-
on him payable to Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
APPELLANTS' SUBMISSIONS
4. Mr. Salil Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant
submits that the Trial Court has adopted an unduly technical approach while
considering the Chamber Summons and the issue of delay. He submits that
under Order XXII Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the
pleader appearing for the deceased party is under an obligation to inform the
Court about the death of the party and that, in the absence of such steps, the
Appellant cannot be non-suited on the ground of delay alone. He submits
that the Trial Court erred in passing the impugned order without considering
this legal position inasmuch as, in the present case, the heirs and legal
representatives of deceased Defendant No. 1 failed to bring the demise of
Defendant No. 1 to the notice of the Plaintiff before the Trial Court.
5. Mr. Shah further points out that the Trial Court failed to
appreciate that his client was incarcerated in Tihar Jail for 13 years between
20th October 1998 and 2011 during which time, he could not effectively
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
prosecute or be diligent about the different proceedings pending before
various fora and the procedural requirements of each such litigation and
thus, his client had no proper knowledge of the death of Defendant No. 1 in
the suit filed before the Trial Court.
6. He submits that the Plaintiff was represented by his constituted
attorney, who did not understand English and especially the legal
submissions made in the pleadings/affidavits filed in the various proceedings
and was dependent solely on legal advice given by his advocates. Mr. Shah
therefore submits that the delay in preferring the application was neither
deliberate nor with any mala fide motive and that, in the interests of justice,
an opportunity ought to have been granted to the Plaintiff and the abatement
of the suit against Defendant No. 1 ought to have been set aside and the
delay in preferring the said application ought to have been condoned and the
Respondents ought to have been impleaded as Defendants in place and stead
of Defendant No. 1 so that the suit could be decided on the merits.
7. Mr. Shah further submits that the Trial Court erred in holding
that the suit stood abated under Order XXII Rule 4(1) of the CPC by relying
on Article 120 of the Limitation Act. He submits that even after the expiry of
the prescribed period of limitation, abatement is not automatic until a formal
order to that effect is passed by the Court seized of the matter.
8. He therefore submits that the impugned order is required to be
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
set aside and this Court should permit the Plaintiff to amend the plaint in
terms of the Schedule (of amendment) to the Chamber Summons after
setting aside the abatement of the suit and condoning the delay in preferring
the said application.
RESPONDENTS' SUBMISSIONS
9. In response, Mr. Mutahhar Khan, learned Counsel who appears
for the Respondents supports the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
He submits that the Chamber Summons has been rightly dismissed by the
Trial Court after recording a finding that the Plaintiff had come with unclean
hands and by making a false statement on oath.
10. He submits that the Plaintiff was aware of the demise of
Defendant No. 1 since as far back as 1991 and relies on the affidavit dated
12th April 1991, filed by the Plaintiff in Interlocutory Notice No. 1750 of
1991 taken out in R.A.D. Suit No. 6835 of 1980, wherein the Plaintiff had
himself sought to implead the heirs and legal representatives of Defendant
No. 1 on record in the said suit pending in the Small Causes Court at
Mumbai by acknowledging that Defendant No. 1 had passed away on 29 th
October 1990. He therefore submits that the statement made by the Plaintiff
in the amended affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons that he came
to know about the demise of Defendant No. 1 only in 2011-2012 is therefore
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
ex facie false and incorrect.
11. He submits that even after April 1991, the factum of the demise
of Defendant No. 1 was acted upon by the parties in various other litigation
that was pending between them and therefore, it is totally false on the part
of the Plaintiff to feign ignorance of the same and claim such knowledge,
only in 2011/2012. He relies on orders passed and/or pleadings filed in Suit
No. 4818 of 1992; Suit No. 1711 of 1994; Suit No. 5690 of 1981; Suit No.
2661 of 1987 and Execution Application No. 13 of 2007 in support of his
said contention.
12. By relying on the above, Mr. Khan is at pains to point out that
despite such prior knowledge, the Plaintiff deliberately suppressed this
material fact from the Trial Court and instead, made false statements on oath
which disentitle him to any relief. He relies on the decision of the Apex Court
in S. P . Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath 1.
13. He relies on Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC and Article 120 of the
Limitation Act and contends that the Plaintiff was required to implead the
heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Defendant No. 1 within the
prescribed period failing which, the suit abates. He points out that the
Plaintiff had knowledge of the passing of Defendant No. 1 since 1991 and
hence, the Chamber Summons was hopelessly time-barred since the same did
1 AIR 1994 SC 853
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
not set out and/or explain the delay and show sufficient cause for its
condonation. In that regard, he relies on the decision of the Apex Court in
Union of India vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy 2.
14. Mr. Khan further submits that the reliance on Order XXII Rule
10A of the CPC by the Plaintiff is entirely misconceived and the same would
not apply to the present case. In support, he relies on the decisions of the
Apex Court in Binod Pathak vs. Shankar Choudhary 3 and Om Prakash Gupta
alias Lalloowa vs. Satish Chandra 4.
A N A LY S I S & F I N D I N G S
15. I have heard both parties at some length and with their
assistance, also perused the record. After careful consideration and for the
reasons more particularly recorded hereinbelow, I am of the opinion that
there is no infirmity with the impugned order and the view taken therein by
the Trial Court.
16. At the outset, I concur with the Trial Court that the Plaintiff has
approached the Court with unclean hands and by making a deliberate false
statement on oath that he acquired knowledge of the demise of Defendant
No. 1 only in the year 2011-2012. I have perused the documents relied upon
by the Respondents and they reveal an entirely different story. They also
2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489
3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1411
4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 291
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
undeniably expose the patently false case with which he had approached the
Trial Court and also this Court. The affidavit dated 12 th April 1991 filed by
the Plaintiff in Interlocutory Notice No. 1750 of 1991 taken out in R.A.D.
Suit No. 6835 of 1980 expressly records that Defendant No. 1 had expired on
29th October 1990 and seeks to bring his heirs and legal representatives on
record. That apart, the said parties have also acted upon the demise of
Defendant No. 1 in some of the other suits, as more particularly reflected in
orders passed therein, including inter alia, order dated 11th September 1992
passed in S.C. Suit No. 5690 of 1981; order dated 31 st July 1992 passed in
Suit No. 4818 of 1992.
17. In the face of this record, the statement of the Plaintiff on oath
that he acquired knowledge of the demise of Defendant No. 1 only in
2011/2012 cannot be accepted. As more particularly held in Chengalvaraya
Naidu (supra), a party who approaches the Court with unclean hands is
disentitled to any reliefs and he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of
the proceedings. Thus, the Trial Court was fully justified in holding that the
said statement was untrue and that the Plaintiff had approached the Court
with a false case and thereby, being disentitled to the reliefs sought in the
Chamber Summons.
18. Once it is held that the Plaintiff had knowledge of the demise of
Defendant No. 1 since 1991, the inordinate delay of about 24 years remains
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
wholly unexplained in the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons. No
satisfactory cause has been shown explaining the delay and why no steps
were taken in the present Suit for all these years.
19. It is well settled that condonation of delay is not a matter of
course. The law of limitation confers upon the successful party a valuable
right which cannot be lightly disturbed. The Supreme Court in Jahangir
Byramji Jeejeebhoy (supra) has emphasized that the Court must arrive at an
independent judicial satisfaction as to whether ' sufficient cause' has been
made out for the entire period of delay. The discretion to condone delay,
though equitable in nature, is required to be exercised judicially and not on
mere sympathy or indulgence. The applicant must furnish a reasonable, bona
fide and satisfactory explanation demonstrating that despite due diligence
the proceedings could not be instituted within time. Mere inaction,
administrative delay or absence of diligence cannot constitute sufficient
cause. The Court, therefore, is duty bound to scrutinize the explanation
offered and balance the principle of substantial justice with the equally
important requirement of certainty and finality in litigation. In the present
case, the Plaintiff has miserably failed the test that is laid down by the
Supreme Court. No sufficient cause has been made out which would justify
the reliefs sought in the Chamber Summons and on this ground also, the
same is required to be dismissed. There is thus no infirmity in the impugned
order on this ground also.
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
20. Next, in order to consider the defense of Order XXII Rule 10A of
the CPC that has been raised by the Plaintiff, it would be profitable to note
the said provision, which reads thus:
"10A. Duty of pleader to communicate to Court death
of a party -- Wherever a pleader appearing for a party to the suit
comes to know of the death of that party, he shall inform the Court
about it, and the Court shall thereupon give notice of such death to the
other party, and, for this purpose, the contract between the pleader and
the deceased party shall be deemed to subsist."
21. The ambit of Order XXII Rule 10A of the CPC is no longer res
integra. In Binod Pathak (supra) and also in Om Prakash Gupta (supra), the
Supreme Court has explained that Rule 10A casts a duty upon the pleader of
a deceased party, on acquiring knowledge of such death, to inform the Court
so that appropriate steps for substitution may be taken. The reason for the
introduction of Rule 10A in the CPC (Amendment) Act of 1976 was to avoid
procedural justice scoring a march over substantial justice. However, as held
by the Court, the applicability of this provision would be inconsequential if
the knowledge of demise of Defendant No. 1 was known to the Plaintiff.
22. In the present case, as held above, the Plaintiff was not only well
aware of the demise of Defendant No. 1 since 1991 but also aware of the
details of his heirs and legal representatives who were impleaded by the
Plaintiff himself, in the other proceedings pending between the same parties
before the Small Causes Court at Mumbai. Additionally, orders dated 31 st
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
July 1992 and 11th September 1992 passed therein also clearly show that the
Plaintiff had full knowledge of these details since 1992. In these
circumstances, the Plaintiff's reliance on Order XXII Rule 10A of the CPC to
contend that despite his said knowledge in the other proceedings, the present
suit could not be said to abate on account of non-compliance with the said
provisions, is entirely misconceived and I have no hesitation in rejecting this
argument which runs contrary to the legislative intent behind its
introduction. The Plaintiff cannot be permitted to use this plea to justify
and/or nullify the effect of his own lackadaisical conduct in the present
proceedings.
23. Similarly, the explanation that the Plaintiff acted through a
constituted attorney and/or that his advocate did not take proper steps to
explain the matter to him, does not constitute sufficient cause in the facts of
the present case. A vague plea of attorney error or negligence, unsupported
by a satisfactory account of the entire delay, cannot justify condonation of
the huge delay of over two decades. This is more so in the facts of the
present case where the parties were engaged in litigation across multiple fora
across the city. As more particularly reiterated by the Supreme Court in
Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (supra), "The rules of limitation are based on
the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not
keep the 'sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of the respondent for
indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
appellants".
24. There is another aspect of the matter. The record shows that the
Plaintiff had earlier filed Chamber Summons No. 250 of 2013, which came to
be disposed of by an order dated 11th March 2015 as "not pressed". In the
impugned order, the Trial Court has correctly noted that no liberty was
granted to the Plaintiff to file a fresh Chamber Summons and the statement
to the contrary, made by him in the Chamber Summons was also rightly
viewed with doubt. A party seeking discretionary and equitable relief is
required to approach the Court with clean hands, and where the record
discloses suppression of material facts and an inconsistent stand on oath, this
Court is justified in declining relief to the said party.
25. Even otherwise, the suit seeks a declaration that the Plaintiff is
the owner of 2/3rd undivided share in the suit property which is stated to
have been purchased by him from original Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who had
passed away on 12th January 1995 and 9th September 2011 respectively.
Since then, the Plaintiff has simpliciter deleted their names from the array of
parties in the suit and not impleaded their heirs and legal representatives
without any reason and/or justification for the same.
26. Having regard to the above consideration, analysis and findings,
I am of the opinion that the said Chamber Summons deserves to be
dismissed with costs and there is no infirmity with the impugned order
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
passed by the Trial Court.
27. Lastly, I have observed that whilst passing the impugned order
dated 13th September 2019, the Trial Court directed the Plaintiff to pay costs
of Rs. 10,000/- to Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 who were contesting the Chamber
Summons. These costs were imposed since the Plaintiff was held to have
approached the Court with unclean hands and with a false case on oath. I am
informed that till date, these costs have not yet been paid. Instead, the
Plaintiff has chosen to file the present Appeal and reiterate the same
untenable plea/s before this Court despite clear and unequivocal
documentary evidence. As a result, the Respondents have been constrained
to spend 7 further years in litigation (from 2019 till date) in order to defend
this Appeal and in the bargain, incur additional litigation expenses.
Considering this conduct, whilst dismissing this Appeal, I am constrained to
increase this amount and impose more realistic costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the
Appellant which shall be payable by him to the contesting Respondents
within a period of 30 days from the date of uploading of this order.
28. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
::ORDER::
(i) The present Appeal From Order is dismissed.
(ii) The Appellant shall pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
AO/77/2021
Romesh vs. Mrs. Swaran & Ors.
the Respondents within a period of 30 days from
the date of uploading of this order.
(iii) All pending Interim Applications/Civil Applications
taken out in the present Appeal, if any, also stand
disposed of in terms of this order, and all interim
orders passed, therein if any, also stand vacated.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. )
Ajay Jadhav
-------------------------------------
Order dated 16th April 2026
