Rukmini Mahadev Shinde Thr. Coa Sainath M. Shinde v. Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban And Thane Zilla Fulbagwan Sangh And ORS

k 1/3 51 wp 9377.24 as-.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9377 OF 2024 Rukmani Mahadev Shinde through COA Sainath M. Shinde ....Petitioner V/S Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban and Thane Zilla, Fulbagwan Sangh & Ors.

....Respondents _________ Mr. Shridhar V. Tajane for the Petitioner.

Mr. R.D. Soni with Ms. Trupti J. Gohil for Respondent No.1. Mr. Harsh Pathak i/b Mr. Durgaprasad Sabnis for Respondent No.2. Ms. Sulbha D. Chipade, AGP for Respondent No.3/State. __________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 1 APRIL 2026.

P.C.:

1.

The Petition challenges order dated 22 November 2023 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, imposing costs of Rs.2,00,000/- on the Petitioner/Plaintiff as a pre-condition for permitting withdrawal of the Suit.

2.

I have heard Mr. Tajane, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner, Mr. Soni, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, Mr. Pathak, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 and Ms. Chipade, AGP for Respondent/State.

1 of

k 2/3 51 wp 9377.24 as-.doc 3.

Plaintiff instituted Licensee Declaration Suit No.103 of 2017 seeking a declaration that she is a licensee in respect of the suit premises. The suit remained pending for over 6 long years. The Plaintiff moved for withdrawal of the Suit on 8 September 2023. It is contended that filing of the Suit was a mistake and claim of license was premised on ill-advice given by an Advocate. Withdrawal of Licensee Declaration Suit is apparently aimed at giving up claim of license. Be that as it may. A party filing Suit is entitled to withdraw the same. The Plaintiff has already filed pleadings in Licensee Declaration Suit No.103 of 2017 and the said pleadings would obviously haunt the Plaintiff in the other proceedings. Plaintiff cannot get away with the pleadings filed in Licensee Declaration Suit No.

103 of 2017 by taking a specious plea that the suit was filed under ill-advice. Therefore, the Defendants in Licensee Declaration Suit No.103 of 2017 would not suffer any prejudice while prosecuting their own L.E. Suit, which is filed for ejectment of the Petitioner. In my view therefore, imposition of costs on the Petitioner/Plaintiff as a precondition for withdrawal of the Suit was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, while setting aside the direction for payment of costs, it is expressly clarified that all the pleadings filed in Licensee Declaration Suit No.103 of 2017 would be relevant for the purpose of deciding various other proceedings pending between the parties.

4.

Order dated 22 November 2023 is accordingly set aside in part to the limited extent of imposition of costs of Rs.2,00,000/-. Rest of the order shall remain operative.

2 of

k 3/3 51 wp 9377.24 as-.doc 5.

Writ Petition is partly allowed in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs in the present Petition.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date:

2026.04.10 18:25:37 +0530 SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Note: This order is corrected in view of speaking to the minutes of order dated 10 April 2026. 3 of