[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Smt. Shanta Babarao Deshmukh vs Shri Becharbhai Jivabhai Patel Thr. Poa ... on 29 April, 2026
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.83 OF 2026
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.149 OF 2018
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearance, Court's orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
CORAM : Dr.M.S. Deshpande
Registrar (Judicial - II)
DATE : 29th April, 2026
1. In a disposed of C.R.A. no.149 of 2018
(Smt. Shanta Babarao Deshmukh vs. Shri
Becharbhai J. Patel & Ors), Adv. Narendra B.
Deshmukh, who claims to be the legal heir
and representative of the original applicant
has moved an Interim Application (Stamp)
No.83 of 2026.
2. By filing the aforesaid interim
application, Adv. Deshmukh has challenged
an order dated 31/10/2025 passed in Misc.
Appeal no.81 of 2017 (Smt. Shanta Babarao
Deshmukh vs. Shri Becharbhai J. Patel &
Ors.) by the Appellate Bench of the Court of
Small Causes, Mumbai. The said
miscellaneous appeal was preferred against
the order dated 28/04/2017 passed below
application (Exh.55). By that order, the
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 03:16:26 :::
2
application moved by Adv. Deshmukh,
seeking transfer of S.C. Suit no.38/34 of
2008 pending before the City Civil Court,
Mumbai to the Court of Small Causes,
Mumbai, was rejected. The application
(Exh.55) was filed in R.A.D. Suit no.924 of
2006 (Smt.Shanta Babarao Deshmukh vs.
Shri Becharbhai J. Patel & Ors). The said
suit was instituted seeking a declaration
that the plaintiff (the applicant herein) in
the said suit was the sub-tenant of the
defendant - landlord (the respondent
herein)
3. Earlier, Adv. Deshmukh, had filed
C.R.A. no.149 of 2018 (Smt.Shanta Babarao
Deshmukh vs. Shri Becharbhai J. Patel &
Ors) challenging the order dated
30/01/2018, passed by the Appellate Bench
of the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai,
below application (Exh.23) in Revision
Application no.38 of 2017. By that order,
the Appellate Court partly allowed the
application (Exh.23) made by the plaintiff
and directed to re-issue notice to
respondent no.3 (defendant no.3) at the
new address mentioned in the application.
The prayer to re-issue notice to the
respondent no.1 (defendant no.1) was
rejected.
4. The Hon'ble High Court (Coram :
R.G. Ketkar, J.) by order dated 09/10/2018
had been pleased to hold that the aforesaid
C.R.A. no.149 of 2018 was nothing but an
abuse of process of court as also abuse of
process of law, and further to dismiss the
same by imposing exemplary costs
Rs.10,000/- payable to respondent no.2
within 04 weeks from the date of that order.
On failure to pay the costs, a liberty was
given to the respondent no.2 to seek
dismissal of the proceedings filed by the
plaintiff.
5. Adv. Deshmukh filed a Civil Application
no.648 of 2018, seeking to set aside the
aforesaid order and declare the said
decision per incuriam. He did not pay the
costs. Ultimately, the Hon'ble High Court
(Coram : Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.) by
judgment dated 27/04/2020 had been
pleased to dismiss the said civil application
with a direction that considering the tactics
the applicant adopted earlier, the Registry
will entertain no more applications from the
applicant in relation to issue decided in
C.R.A. no.149 of 2018 and Civil Application
no.648 of 2018.
6. Adv. Deshmukh had also filed Civil
Reference no.1 of 2018 challenging the
order of Hon'ble High Court (Coram : R.G.
Ketkar, J.) adjourning the C.R.A. no.149 of
2018 "beyond vacation" and for referring
the C.R.A. before the Hon'ble the Acting
Chief Justice to place the same before the
Larger Bench etc. The Hon'ble High Court
(Coram : G.S. Patel & Gauri Godse, JJ.) by
order dated 30/09/2022 had been pleased
to dismiss the civil reference by holding that
under the guise of the so called civil
reference the entire matter was sought to be
re-opened once again.
7. Thereafter, the aforesaid order was
challenged before another Division Bench of
the Hon'ble High Court. However, the
Hon'ble High Court (Coram : G.S. Kulkarni
& Advait M. Sethna, JJ.) by order dated
16/01/2025 by holding that a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court cannot consider any
application in regard to challenge to an
order passed by another Division Bench, and
by keeping open all the contentions of the
applicant to take recourse to appropriate
remedies as known to law, the proceedings
were removed from the board.
8. Now, Adv. Deshmukh has moved the
first referred Interim Application (Stamp)
no.83 of 2026 in Interim Application
(Stamp) no.257 of 2021 in C.R.A. no.149 of
2018. The C.R.A. was finally dismissed on
09/10/2018. All the challenges against the
said dismissal are already turned down by
the Hon'ble High Court. The plaintiff -
Adv. Deshmukh has not complied with the
order of payment of costs to the respondent
no.2. However, he has also filed an affidavit
in this matter with two cheques of
Rs.10,000/- for payment of costs towards
the compliance of the aforesaid order and
Rs.1,000/- for payment of security deposit
etc., though he was directed to pay the costs
to the respondent no.2 within the stipulated
period of 04 weeks from the date of order
09/10/2018. Paying of the costs by cheque
in such a manner does not correspond to the
mandate given in the order dated
09/10/2018 and thus, the same cannot be
accepted by the Registry.
9. Once the C.R.A. no.149 of 2018 is
finally disposed of on 09/10/2018, a matter
relating to transfer of a suit from the
Bombay City Civil Court, Mumbai to the
Court of Small Causes, Mumbai, which is
not at all related/connected to the matter in
dispute in the said C.R.A., cannot be
agitated under the garb of the present
interim application. Such interim
application is not maintainable. Similarly,
in such interim application the costs which
were imposed by order dated 09/10/2018
and directed to be paid to the respondent
no.2, cannot be paid by cheque in the name
of the Registrar, Bombay High Court,
Appellate Side. It is sheer abuse of process
of law and process of court.
10. Moreover, the matter challenged in
this interim application is also not
connected with the Interim Application
(Stamp) no.257 of 2021. Therefore, by no
stretch of imagination the order dated
16/01/2025 passed in Civil Reference no.1
of 2018 giving liberty to the plaintiff, i.e. the
applicant herein to take recourse to
"appropriate remedies as known to law",
(emphasis supplied) is also not helpful to
the plaintiff to move the present interim
application to seek redress of his grievance,
if any. It is because the applicant-plaintiff
has not taken recourse to the appropriate
remedies as known to law. Time and again,
he is abusing the process of law, which
cannot be entertained on any count.
11. In the circumstances, for the reasons
recorded above, the registration of Interim
Application (Stamp) no.83 of 2026 is
refused.
12. The applicant-plaintiff-Adv. Deshmukh
is to take back the aforesaid cheques from
the Registry before 08/05/2026, if he so
desires.
sd/-
Registrar (Judl. - II)
dsm
