V Rajgopal Partner Of Erstwhile Harishree Enterprises v. Vikas Housing Ltd
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION by KANCHAN PRASHANT DHURI Date:
2025.11.12 14:40:52 +0530 KANCHAN PRASHANT DHURI INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5924 OF 2025 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 22003 OF 2024 V Rajgopal, Partner of erstwhile Harishree Enterprises ... Applicant
Versus
Vikas Housing Ltd and others ... Respondents ............
Mr. Kamlesh Tiwari alongwith Mr. Mahesh Pandey, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms. Pooja Kane instructed by Mr. Yogesh Adhia, Advocate for the Respondents.
............
CORAM
:
ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE :
11 NOVEMBER 2025 P.C. :
1.
Pursuant to the earlier orders of this Court, today when the matter is called out, the learned Associate points out that the Registry has given a say dated 15th October 2025.
2.
This Court had on 6th October 2025 in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Applicant that since the concerned Court Associate was not having time, the objections could not be removed and that the dismissal has occurred due to inadvertence or Kanchan Dhuri 1/3
clerical oversight of the Registry, directed that before passing any order, the Registry/Prothonotary & Senior Master to be given an opportunity to answer the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Applicant. Accordingly, a say has been filed by the Registry in response to the said submissions made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Applicant. 3.
A perusal of the say indicates that while the submission made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Applicant has not been denied by the Registry an explanation is sought to be offered by the concerned Associate that since there was no endorsement with respect to the compliance of office objection on 9th September 2025, the Execution Application has been rejected and that the concerned Advocate has put his endorsement on 10th September 2025 with respect to the compliance of the office objection. That on 22nd September 2025 also since there was no endorsement by the Advocate, the Execution Application has been rejected. This is neither here nor there. 4.
Ms. Kane, learned Counsel, appearing for the Respondent submits that in view of the say of the Registry she has no objection if the Application is allowed and the Execution Application is restored to file.
5.
While the concerned Associate and the Registry officials are directed to be more careful in future, in view of the submissions made Kanchan Dhuri 2/3
before this Court, the Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which read thus :
(a) Set aside the order dated 19th August 2025 by which Execution Application (St) No.22003 of 2024 was dismissed.
(b) Restore Execution Application (St) No.22003 of 2024 to its original file for hearing and disposal on merits.
6.
Let the Registry now award registered number to the Execution Application.
7.
Let the registered application be served upon the other side, within a period of three weeks.
8.
Interim Application accordingly stands allowed and disposed as above.
9.
This Court hopes that the Registry functions in a more professional manner.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) Kanchan Dhuri 3/3