Deepak Navnitlal Panchal v. State Bank Of India Thr. Its Branch Manager And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 12836 of 2025 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1723 OF 2025 Deepak Navnitlal Panchal ....Appellant/ Applicant V/S State Bank Of India Thr. Its Branch Manager And Ors.

....Respondents **** Mr. Kunal Bhanage i/b. Mr. Vikas Pandey for the Applicant. Mr. Reshant Shah a/w. Ms. Reema Sahani i/b Lex Conseiller for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 present.

****

CORAM

: M. M. SATHAYE, J.

DATED : 11th NOVEMBER 2025 P.C.:

1.

Heard learned counsel for the Appellant / Applicant and learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

Digitally signed by SNEHA JAYPRAKASH BANG Date:

2025.11.12 19:42:10 +0530 2.

The appeal is filed by plaintiff challenging the Judgment and Order SNEHA JAYPRAKASH BANG dated 19.05.2025 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Suit No. 1074 of 2025. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that at the stage of ad interim relief, pending application as well as suit is disposed of. 3.

The parties are closely related, in as much as, Plaintiff is real Brother of Defendant Nos. 6 and 7. The dispute is over various amounts lying with Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 belonging to the father of the parties - late Shri 1/3

Navnit Narottam Panchal. It appears that the suit and pending application is disposed of even without written statement being filed by Defendant Nos. 6 and 7.

4.

However, the relationship between the parties is not disputed. 5.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 must be directed to disclose as at to what were the investments of late Navnit Narottam Panchal with them. He submits that the Trial Court has simply directed Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 to disclose the amount received by them as a nominee of the deceased. He submits that the proceedings of the testamentary petition could not be traced.

6.

Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 6 and 7 on the other hand, submitted that the testamentary petition is lodged by e-filing and Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are ready to file disclosure of an amount received as nominee as directed under impugned order.

7.

Apparently, the suit has been disposed of at ad-interim stage and the contentions of parties on merits, including the objections orally raised by the Respondent No. 6 and 7, have not been considered. In order to avoid causing prejudice to either party, this Court is refraining from commenting on the objections raised by Respondent No. 6 and 7. 8.

At this stage, in order to ascertain the investments of late Navnit Narottam Panchal, issue notice of final disposal to Respondents returnable two weeks. In addition to the court-notice, private notice is permitted. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 waives service. 9.

In the meantime, Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are directed to file 2/3

disclosure affidavit in this Court, as per Clause 3 of the impugned order. (M. M. SATHAYE, J.) 3/3