The Board Of Trustees Of The Mumbai Port Trust v. The Indian Hotel Company Limited

Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 19th November, 2025 FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :

CHOL/517/2025 in APPL/547/2018 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Counsel Mr. Chetan Shah a/w. Ms. Khushboo Rupani and Vineetha Khandelwal I/b. HSA Advocates, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Nirav Barot a/w. Shreya Satheesh i/b. Maneksha and Sethna, Advocate for respondent.

P.C.:

The present Chamber Order is filed by the applicant for setting aside Order dated 31.01.2019, rejecting captioned Appeal under O.S.Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections.

Heard both ld. Advocates for parties. I have gone through the grounds set out in the Affidavit in Support of the applicant. It is contended that on the day of removal of office objections, clerk of Advocate on record passed away and thereafter, matter remain unattended and Advocate came to know about the matter in the month of September, 2025.

Thereafter, they immediately moved Chamber Order and thus there is delay of 1019 days in filing present Chamber Order. The applicant contended that delay caused in filing present Chamber Order is not intentional and prayed to restore captioned Appeal.

Ld. Advocate for the respondent strongly opposed the present Chamber Order on technical grounds that there is no provision of filing revised Chamber Order, which is reflecting from the praecipe. Secondly, reasons of delay are not sufficiently explained. Thirdly, ld. Advocate for the applicant was well aware of the order passed on 31.01.2019 since they appeared in the matter. Lastly, he vehemently contended that captioned Appeal may not be restored to file.

2 Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 19th November, 2025 contd....

CHOL/517/2025 in APPL/547/2018 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) After considering rival submissions of the parties and looking to the reasons assigned, I am of the view that the applicant has set out sufficient reasons for condonation of delay as well as for restoration of captioned Appeal.

Therefore, I am of the considered view that if the captioned Appeal is not restored to file, the applicant will be thrown out of justice. On the contrary, no prejudice would cause to the respondent if captioned Appeal is restored to file since they can contest matter on its own merits. The delay caused in filing Chamber Order can be compensated by awarding cost.

Hence, delay of 1019 days caused in filing present Chamber Order is condoned and present Chamber Order is granted as prayed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/-, to be paid to the respondent.

Upon payment of cost, captioned Appeal be restored to file and the appellant to remove office objections on Appeal and get the same registered and/or numbered within four weeks from the date of uploading of order, failing Appeal to stand rejected for non-compliance of Office objections under O.S.Rule 986.

In the captioned Appeal, office objections were raised by the then Associate Mr. Talekar, who is now transferred. Therefore, matter be reassigned to the another scrutiny officer for raising office objections, if any.

Date : 19.11.2025 Prothonotary and Senior Master Digitally signed by RAJEEV VIJAY ACHARYA Date:

2025.11.20 12:31:44 +0530 RAJEEV VIJAY ACHARYA