Vikram Kumar v. Y T Entertainment Limited,
55 WP 16248.25.DOC SAINATH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16248 OF 2025 Vikram Kumar ..Petitioner
Versus
Y T Entertainment Limited
...Respondent
Mr. Vishwanath Patil i/b Janam Sonpal, for Petitioner. Mr. Aurup Dasgupta a/w Drshika Hemnani, Prapti Bhadra i/b Jangiani, Narula & Associates, for Respondent.
CORAM:
N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE :
01st DECEMBER 2025 P.C.:
1.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2.
The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 12th November, 2025 whereby the learned Judge, City Civil Court SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2025.12.03 10:22:40 +0530 has rejected an application filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the plaintiff to furnish a copy of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3.
The learned Judge, after recording the developments in the suit, has rejected the application by imposing costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. The learned Judge was of the view that, the petitioner/defendant was adopting dilatory tactics. 1/2
55 WP 16248.25.DOC 4.
Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel submitted that, the petitioner intends to file an affidavit in reply to meet the case of willful disobedience of injunction order passed by the Court, and the affidavit in reply is ready.
5.
Without delving into the allegations and counter allegations, while maintaining the costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to be paid by the petitioner/defendant to the plaintiff, this Court considers it expedient in the interest of justice to allow the petitioner to file affidavit in reply to the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A by 3rd December, 2025 and serve its copy to the plaintiff.
6.
The petitioner shall not seek any adjournment for the purpose of hearing of the said application which is scheduled to be listed on 04th December, 2025.
7.
The Petition stands disposed .
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 2/2