[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Smt. Kanchan Jashwantsinh Parmar And ... vs Bochsanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam ... on 20 February, 2026
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2026:BHC-AS:8797
P12.AOST.5025.2026+.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST.) NO.5025 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.5026 OF 2026
Kanchan Jashwantsinh Parmar and Ors. .. Appellants
Versus
Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam
Swaminarayan Sanstha Public Charitable Trust
and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Ms. Rekha Musale, Advocate for Appellants.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 20, 2026
P.C.:
1. Not on Board. Mentioned at the time of rising by way of
filing praecipe dated 20.02.2026. Perused the praecipe.
2. Heard Ms. Musale, learned Advocate for Appellants.
3. Interim Application is filed seeking urgent intervention of
this Court for effecting a stay on the order dated 17.02.2026 passed by
the learned Trial Court, copy of which is appended as per Roznama at
Exhibit-E, page No.97. On going through the said order and the
grounds stated in the Interim Application and the Appeal from Order
and more specifically the Exhibits appended to the Appeal from Order
it is prima facie seen that there is genuine medical emergency duly
substantiated by appropriate documentary evidence on the part of
Defendants to begin the final hearing on 21.02.2026 i.e. tomorrow.
1 of 6
P12.AOST.5025.2026+.doc
The anxiety of the Court is prima facie evident from the observations
made in paragraph No.6.
4. There is no doubt that subject case is an old case and in view
of the action plan envisaged for determination of old cases, the final
hearing of the subject case is required to be commenced as directed by
the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has appropriately
stated and acted in view of the fact that the Hon'ble District Court has
issued directions in its Inspection Note of 2024 - 2025 and as per
contents of the said Inspection Note, time of two months was extended
to dispose of the Special Civil Suit No.4 of 2012. In this view of the
matter, request made by Defendants in their Applications filed
Exhibits-281 and 283 are rejected.
5. Having considered the situation it is also equally seen that
initially the final hearing of the suit proceedings was itself fixed on
04.04.2026 but the same has been pre-poned in view of the
observations made in paragraph No.2 of the impugned order. What
weighs with the Court is infact the reasons advanced by Defendants
which are noted by Trial Court though not adequately so in paragraph
No.3 of the impugned order. It is seen that wife of the Advocate who
has appeared on behalf of Defendants all throughout got diagnosed
from serious medical ailment (brain hemorrhage) as noted by learned
Trial Court and the concerned Advocate has expressed his helplessness
2 of 6
P12.AOST.5025.2026+.doc
in not been able to attend the Court to provide care and support to his
wife atleast for further period of one month from the date of passing of
the order.
6. It is true that on one hand Court is required to dispose of the
old matters but in the present case the ignominy of Defendants would
stand compounded if Defendants are required to look for a new
Advocate at this eleventh hour to argue the final arguments in the suit
proceedings due to reasons which are stated and equally noted by the
Trial Court for his absence.
7. Though Ms. Musale has taken me through the various
Exhibits appended to the Interim Application, inter alia, duly justifying
the medical position / severity of the medical ailment, juxtaposed with
same on the other hand is the mission undertaken by the Court in
disposing of the old matters.
8. In my opinion when a legitimate request of such a nature
appears to be a genuine request on the face of record, there should be
no reason as to why the learned Trial Court should not consider it.
Ultimately Advocates are Officers of the Court and equal stakeholders
rather they play a very important role in acting as a conduit between
the litigant and the Court. The role of a lawyer / pleader is equally
defined alongwith their duties in the Advocates Act, 1961 and the
Rules framed thereunder. Though it is true that the matter is old but
3 of 6
P12.AOST.5025.2026+.doc
the fact if final arguments are only pending and witness action /
evidence has been completed fully should have also been considered in
the peculiar facts of the case.
9. Ms. Musale on behalf of Defendants would submit that in
view of the peculiar circumstances, reasons and trajectory of the
matter having been conducted by the concerned Advocate on record all
throughout the trial, reasons for seeking postponement of matter by
one month needs to be appreciated especially when reasons for the
same are prima facie genuine duly supported by and substantiated by
evidence.
10. It is also equally true that originally the final arguments were
fixed on 04.04.2026 but the unfortunate incident of the family member
of Advocate namely his wife being diagnosed with brain hemorrhage
and she undertaking the treatment has resulted in an imminent
situation whereby all that the Advocate on behalf of the Defendants
has sought is time for four weeks.
11. This is not a case where Applications below Exhibits -281
and 283 have been filed merely because of the date of pre-ponement of
final hearing. Unfortunately Advocate appearing on behalf of
Defendants has met with an unforeseen situation in his family which is
the principal reason stated in the Application and therefore the request
is made.
4 of 6
P12.AOST.5025.2026+.doc
12. Though the learned Trial Court has noted the said reason in
its order, the same in my opinion was required to be considered in its
appropriate and proper perspective. Ms. Musale has taken instructions
and would apprise the Court that in view of the medical reason, the
Suit be directed to be heard for final hearing on 04.04.2026 as was
decided previously. She has also on instructions further submitted that
if the same Advocate is unable to attend on 04.04.2026 due to the
medical exigency being compounded further, then in that case, the
Defendants will ensure that they will make adequate alternate
arrangements.
13. The forthrightness with which Ms. Musale has made the
following Application, impels me to pass the above order and allow the
Interim Application and the Appeal from Order. No purpose
whatsoever will be served by issuing notice or granting any interim
relief at this stage in this matter when the Trial Court is already seized
with final hearing of the matter.
14. In that view of the matter, Interim Application and Appeal
from Order are disposed with the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 17.02.2026 passed below
Exhibits- 281 and 283 stands modified and it is directed
that Suit be heard for final arguments on 04.04.2026 in
place of 21.02.2026 in the interest of justice as also in
5 of 6
P12.AOST.5025.2026+.doc
the interest of the parties to the suit proceedings and
only to that extent the order stands modified. Rest of
the order remains the same.
15. In view of the aforesaid reasons without giving any
imprimatur on merits of the matter and clarifying that even though the
Suit is an old Suit in view of the genuine reasons which are seen on the
basis of the documentary evidence appended to the Appeal from Order
and the Interim Application, present order is passed.
16. With the above directions, Appeal from Order is disposed. In
view of disposal of Appeal from Order, pending Interim Application is
also disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.02.20
19:04:55 +0530
6 of 6
