Shesherao Hushen Kamble And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15098 OF 2025 Mansi Vora and Anr
...Petitioners
Versus
Kaynet Finance Ltd and Anr
...Respondents
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 35585 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 15098 OF 2025 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.02.13 20:04:16 +0530 Adv. Krushi Barfiwala, a/w Archit Shah, Drishti Deora, i/b Parinam Law Associates, for the Petitioners.
Adv. Siddha Pamecha, a/w Nehal Rajput, i/b Thodur Law Associates, for the Respondents.
CORAM:
N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED:
9th FEBRUARY, 2026 Oral Order:- 1.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2.
The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 23rd February, 2024, whereby the learned Judge, City Civil Court, dismissed Notice of Motion No.429/2024, taken out by the defendants for rejection of the plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for want of prosecution.
3.
Initially, the learned Judge rejected the application for adjournment by ascribing reasons and imposing costs of 1/5
Rs.2,000/-. The learned Judge adverted to the conduct on the part of the defendants which, in the opinion of the learned Judge, indicated that the defendants intended to delay the hearing in the suit.
4.
The petitioners - defendants took out a Notice of Motion No.1525/2024 seeking to set aside the order dated 25th February, 2024 dismissing Notice of Motion for want of prosecution and to restore the said Notice of Motion to file. The learned Judge dismissed the said Notice of Motion as well as there was delay in filing the said Notice of Motion and an application for condonation of delay was not filed and the reasons ascribed by the learned Judge for rejecting Notice of Motion No.429/2024 appeared to be justifiable. 5.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners could not proceed with Notice of Motion No.429/2024 on 23rd February, 2024 on account of pressing circumstances and genuine reasons. An Advocate on behalf of the defendants was present before the Court and, yet, Notice of Motion No.429/2024 came to be rejected. It was submitted that the petitioners have a very good case on merits, which fact the learned Judge has also adverted to in the order dated 30th January, 2025.
2/5
6.
The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs resisted the petition. It was submitted that the learned Judge was justified in rejecting the subsequent Notice of Motion No.1525/2024 as there was delay in taking out the said Notice of Motion and no application for condonation of delay was filed. It was further submitted that the material on record does indicate that the defendants had resorted to dilatory tactics. Therefore, the defendants do not deserve any consideration.
7.
I have perused the material on record. At this stage and in this proceeding, this Court need not delve into the merits of the ground on which the rejection of the plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code has been prayed for. It appears that the conduct of the defendants, as reflected in the order passed by the learned Judge on the application for adjournment (Exhibit-25), weighed with the learned Judge, in rejecting Notice of Motion No.429/2024 for want of prosecution. Yet, the fact remains that the application for rejection of the plaint has not been heard on merits. The provisions contained in Order VII Rule 11 have an definite object of nipping in the bud a suit which is fruitless and vexatious. Therefore, this Court considers it expedient in the interest of justice to provide an opportunity to the defendants to seek the determination of 3/5
the application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code on merits.
8.
The Court is informed that the suit is now scheduled to be listed before the learned Judge, City Civil Court, on 19th March, 2026.
9.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, assures the Court that the petitioners - defendants would not seek adjournments henceforth for the hearing of the said Notice of Motion and other proceedings in the suit.
10.
Hence, the following order:
: O R D E R :
(i) Order dated 23rd February, 2024 dismissing Notice of Motion No.429/2024 for want of prosecution as well as the order dated 30th January, 2025 in Notice of Motion No.1525/2024 stand quashed and set aside.
(ii) Notice of Motion No.429/2024 stands restored to the file of the learned Judge, City Civil Court, for hearing and disposal in accordance with law on its own merits, subject to the following conditions:
4/5
(a) The petitioners - defendants shall pay costs of Rs.15,000/- to the plaintiffs within a period of two weeks from today. (b) The payment of costs shall be a condition precedent. (c) The petitioners - defendants shall appear before the learned Judge, City Civil Court, on 19th March, 2026 and work out Notice of Motion No.429/2024 and shall not seek any adjournment for the hearing of the said Notice of Motion and other connected proceedings.
(iii) The petition stands disposed.
(iv) It is clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter and all contentions of all the parties are kept open for adjudication by the trial Court. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 5/5