[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Kartik Bhatt vs Aditya Bhatt on 12 March, 2026
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
2026:BHC-OS:6501
44-S-1000-2018 @ CONNECTED APPLICATIONS.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7829 OF 2025
IN
SUIT NO. 1000 OF 2018
KARTIK BHATT )...APPLICANT /
DEFENDANT NO.3
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
AMIT RUPAREL AND OTHERS )...PLAINTIFFS
V/s.
ADITYA BHATT AND OTHERS )...DEFENDANTS
Mr.Anand Pandey i/by Mr.Sujit Suresh, Advocate for the Applicant
/Original Defendant No.3
Mr.Vasant Dhawan a/w. Mr.Sanket Dhawan, Advocate for the Plaintiffs.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 12th MARCH 2026
P.C. :
1. This Interim Application seeks restoration of Interim Application
(Lodging) No.11147 of 2024 which came to be dismissed for non-
removal of office objections within the time granted by this Court.
2. Mr.Anand Pandey, learned Counsel, appears for the Applicant and
submits that as there was a change in Advocate, the objections could
ARTI
VILAS not be removed and registered number could not be obtained in time.
KHATATE
44-S-1000-2018 @ CONNECTED APPLICATIONS.doc
That, the dismissal is purely technical in nature and arising out of
inadvertent and bonafide circumstances, and therefore, this Court may
condone the delay, if any, and restore the Interim Application (Lodging)
No.11147 of 2024 and grant some time to remove office objections and
obtain registered number.
3. Mr.Vasant Dhawan, learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondents / Plaintiffs opposes the application and submits that reply
has been filed. Mr.Dhawan submits that the reason to justify the non-
removal of office objections within the time granted by this Court is
false and misleading and contrary to the record, in as much as,
Mr.Chaitanya Bhandarkar had already filed Vakalatnama in the Suit
and had taken out the Interim Application (Lodging) No.11174 of 2024
which was signed by the Applicant on 2nd April 2024 and which is the
application which came to be dismissed for non-removal of office
objections. That, the present Advocate Mr.Sujit Suresh had filed his
Vakalatnama only on 12th December 2025, which is long after the
stipulated dated viz. 2nd October 2025 to remove the office objections
and obtain registered number had expired, and therefore, the excuse of
change in Advocate is completely false and misleading and contrary to
the record.
44-S-1000-2018 @ CONNECTED APPLICATIONS.doc
4. In rejoinder, Mr.Pandey for the Applicant submits that he has a
good case on merits and that until and unless the Interim Application
(Lodging) No.11147 of 2024 is not restored and heard, the said
Applicant would not be able to file his written statement.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel and considered the
submissions.
6. It is not in dispute that the excuse for not being able to remove
office objections to the Interim Application (Lodging) No.11147 of
2024 by 2nd October 2025 on the ground that there was change in
Advocate is not correct. The learned Counsel appearing for the
Plaintiffs is right that the Interim Application (Lodging) No.11147 of
2024 was taken out by the earlier Advocate who had filed his
Vakalatnama and who did not remove office objections within the time
granted by this Court, due to which the said Interim Application came
to be dismissed by a self operative order of this Court. That, the
present Advocate had filed his Vakalatnama only on 12 th December
2025, which is much after the date of 2nd October 2025, and therefore,
the reason for not being able to remove office objections in time, as
submitted by the learned Counsel for the Applicant, cannot be
countenanced.
44-S-1000-2018 @ CONNECTED APPLICATIONS.doc
7. Mr.Pandey for the Applicant has submitted that his client -
Applicant / Defendant no.3 has a good case on merits and that this
Court may condone the delay in taking out the application and also
thereafter restore the Interim Application No.11147 of 2024 and also
permit some time to remove office objections and obtain registered
number.
8. It is a settled law that a litigant need not be shut out on
technicalities, however, the discipline to abide by orders of this Court to
remove office objections and obtain registered number in the time
granted by this Court also needs to be enforced. It is also a settled law
that if the delay can be compensated by reasonable costs, the same be
condoned.
9. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the application subject
to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- by the Applicant to the Plaintiffs
within a period of three weeks.
10. Subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- by the Applicant to
the Plaintiffs within a period of three weeks, the Interim Application
(Lodging) No.11147 of 2024 be restored to file. Let office objections
44-S-1000-2018 @ CONNECTED APPLICATIONS.doc
be removed and registered number be obtained thereafter within a
period of three weeks.
11. The Interim Application accordingly stands allowed and disposed
as above.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
