Aakash Sharadkumar Janvalkar Caveator v. Shaila Chimajirao Janvalkar Daughter Of Chimaji Babaji Janvalkar
Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 02nd December, 2025 FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :
CHOL/610/2025 in CTSL/2578/2023 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Ms. Seema Hunnurkar and Associates, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Prasanna Pawar i/b. Shamim and Company, Advocate for the petitioner.
P.C.:
The present Chamber Order is e-filed by the applicant for setting aside Order dated 19.09.2025, rejecting captioned Caveat under O.S.Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections.
Heard ld. Advocate for the applicant. Perused Affidavit in Support, contents of which are self-explanatory. It is contended that earlier Mr. V. M. Parkar, Advocate was attending the matter. However, owing to his old age and some health issues, he could not take necessary steps in the matter for removing office objections. It is further contended that now he has engaged present Advocate in the matter, who will pursue with the matter diligently. It is further contended that delay of 08 days caused in filing present Chamber Order, which was not intentional. Therefore, it is prayed that captioned Caveat may be restored to the file by condoning delay.
Ld. Advocate for the respondent/petitioner resisted present Chamber Order by filing Affidavit in Reply, mainly on the grounds that, no sufficient cause is shown in the Affidavit; contentions raised in the Affidavit are contrary and inconsistent with the true and correct facts; and there is delay of 37 days caused in filing present Chamber Order, which was not explained satisfactorily because of which present Chamber Order is required to be dismissed with cost.
2 Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 02nd December, 2025 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Upon hearing rival contentions of both the sides, I am of the view that the applicant has shown sufficient cause in his Affidavit for the purpose of restoration of captioned Caveat. Furthermore, substantial justice cannot be denied on technical ground. I am of the view that the applicant should get one opportunity to pursue with the matter. No prejudice would cause to the respondent/petitioner since the petitioner can contest matter on its own merits. At this stage, if captioned Caveat is not restored to file then the applicant will be thrown out of justice.
Further, as per record, the present Chamber Order was required to be filed within thirty days from the date of rejecting the matter by the office i.e. after expiring period of two weeks, granted vide Order dated 19.09.2025. Accordingly, Chamber Order was required to be lodged on or before 03.11.2025, however, it was lodged on 15.11.2025. So there is mere delay of 12 days in filing present Chamber Order, which is considerable and it can be condoned. In view thereof, in the interest of justice, I consider present Chamber Order favourably. However, it would be just and proper to impose certain cost on the applicant so that the applicant would be more diligent in pursuing with the matter. Hence, the present Chamber Order is granted as prayed subject to payment of cost of Rs.
5,000/- to the petitioner within three days from the date of uploading of order.
contd....
CHOL/610/2025 in CTSL/2578/2023 Upon payment of cost, captioned Caveat be restored to file and the applicant to remove office objections of Caveat and get the same registered and/or numbered within two weeks from the date of payment of cost, failing Caveat to stand rejected for non-compliance of O.S.Rule 986.
Date : 02.12.2025 Prothonotary and Senior Master Digitally signed by RAJEEV VIJAY ACHARYA Date:
2025.12.02 18:00:17 +0530 RAJEEV VIJAY ACHARYA