Asiya Salim Shaikh And ANR v. Romell Housing Llp And 22 ORS

Before : Sachin B. Bhansali, FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :

Mr. Laxman Jain i/b. Garima Anil Mehrotra, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. Dheeraj Patil a/w. Mr. Drupad Patil, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

Ms. Swati Kapadia i/b. Amit Kate, Advocate for respondent nos. 14 to 16, 21, 22, 24 and 25.

P.C. :

The present Chamber Order is taken out by the applicants for setting aside Order dated 08.08.2023, rejecting captioned Suit under O.S.Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections.

Ld. Advocate for the applicants tenders Affidavit of Service dated 14.03.2024, which is taken on record.

Ld. Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 14 to 16, 21, 22, 24 and 25 submits that she intends to file Vakalatnama and Affidavit in Reply for these respondents, stating therein that defendant nos. 5 to 13 are expired. Ld. Advocate to file the same with the department. Heard ld. Advocates appearing for the applicants and respondent nos. 1 to 3, 14 to 16, 21, 22, 24 and 25. Perused Affidavit of the Applicant. It is contended that the applicants were in process of collecting all papers and proceedings from previous Advocate and handing over to newly appointed Advocate in respect of three suits. It is further contended that office objections in respect of two suits were complied with in time, however, office objections in the captioned suit with respect to translation of documents could not be complied with in given time as the captioned

2 Before : Sachin B. Bhansali, contd....

Suit runs into 900 pages and 4 volumes. It is further contended that now, the applicants received complete set of translated documents and therefore, prayed that captioned Suit may be restored to file.

Ld. Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3 strongly opposed present Chamber Order on the ground that sufficient opportunities have already been granted to the applicants for removing office objections, however, the applicants failed to comply the same within given period and prayed for imposing cost if the captioned Suit is restored to file.

Ld. Advocate for respondent nos. 14 to 16, 21, 22, 24 and 25 reiterated her contention, as stated above.

Ld. Advocate for the applicants submits that he will take appropriate steps in respect of deceased defendants in accordance with law if captioned suit is restored to file.

Reasons mentioned in the Affidavit of the applicant, appear to be genuine. In respect of objection raised by the Ld. Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3, as noted above, I am of the view that though earlier opportunities were granted to the the applicant, one opportunity is required to be granted to the applicants to pursue with the captioned suit, so that, captioned suit will be heard and decided on merits by which substantial justice can be taken care of. Further, relying on the contentions raised in the Affidavit, it appears that the applicants had taken efforts to remove office objections, however, same could not be removed for the reasons mentioned therein.

Thus, I am not inclined to impose cost upon the applicants while considering the present Chamber Order favourably.

3 Before : Sachin B. Bhansali, contd....

For the forgoing discussion, the present Chamber Order is granted as prayed and signed separately.

The plaintiffs to remove office objections on the Suit and get the same registered and/or numbered within three weeks from the date of uploading of order, failing suit to stand rejected for non-compliance of office objections under O.S.Rule 986.

Date : 14.03.2024 Prothonotary and Senior Master by RAJEEV VIJAY ACHARYA Date:

2024.03.16 14:48:37 +0530 RAJEEV VIJAY ACHARYA