Satra Properties (India) Limited v. Prime Developers And 4 ORS.

Before : Sachin B. Bhansali Prothonotary and Senior Master Date : 27th September, 2024 FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :

14. CHOL/391/2024 IN S(L)/1786/2023 ) ) ) ) Ms. Prisca Fernandes i/b. Mr. Amit Tungare, Advocate for Plaintiff / Applicant None present for respondents.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) P.C. : The present Chamber Order is taken out by the Plaintiff / Applicant for setting aside Order dated 17.10.2023, rejecting captioned Suit under O.S.Rule 986 for non-removal of office objections.

Upon perusal of the Affidavit of Service, it appears that Chamber Order has duly been served upon Respondents. However, despite service, none appeared for the Respondents.

Heard Ld. Advocate appearing for the applicant / plaintiff. Perused Chamber Order and Affidavit in Support to the Chamber Order, contents of which are self-explanatory. To get the order, in question, set aside, mainly, the plaintiff has averred that erstwhile Advocate failed to remove office objections though the plaintiff was in constant contact with the erstwhile Advocate, who only could assure to remove office objections and get the suit finally numbered. For the reasons stated in the Affidavit in Support to the Chamber Order and as the plaintiff was dependent on the advice of ld. Advocate on record, one opportunity to remove office objections and get the suit finally numbered, needs to be given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff should not suffer for the inaction on the part of erstwhile Advocate, who represented the plaintiff in the suit at that time. With regard to 181 days delay caused in filing present Chamber Order, the applicant/plaintiff in his

Contd....

: 2 :

Prothonotary and Senior Master Date : 27th September, 2024 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Affidavit in Support stated that the applicant was solely dependent upon the advice of the erstwhile Advocate on record, who remained passive in complying with the office objections within time. Due to which, the suit was rejected. It is only when the applicant could come to know about rejection of the suit for want of compliance when he engaged services of present Advocate, who immediately filed the present Chamber Order.

For the forgoing discussion, I am of the view that the delay of 181 days, as above, is properly explained and therefore, the same is condoned and present Chamber Order is granted as prayed and signed separately.

The plaintiff to remove office objections on the Suit and get the same numbered and/or registered within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order, failing the Suit to stand rejected for nonremoval of office objections under O.S.Rule 986. Chamber Order is disposed of accordingly.

Date : 27.09.2024 Prothonotary & Senior Master by RAJEEV VIJAY ACHARYA Date:

2024.09.30 15:26:43 +0530 RAJEEV VIJAY ACHARYA