5-WP-7269-2015.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7269 OF 2015 Capt. D. K. Tewari … Petitioner Vs. The Shipping Corporation of … Respondents India Limited WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9422 OF 2016 The Shipping Corporation of … Petitioner of India Ltd. Vs. S. G. Mistry … Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9421 OF 2016 The Shipping Corporation of … Petitioner of India Ltd. Vs. Capt. D. K. Tiwari … Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7256 OF 2015 S. G. Mistry … Petitioner Vs. The Shipping Corporation of … Respondents India Limited Mr. Chirag Mody a/w. Ms. Manisha Virkhare and Mr. Nandkishor Supal and Ms.Trupti Gage i/b. Divya Shah Associates for Petitioner in WP/7269/2015 and Respondent in WP/9421/2016. 1/7 rrpillai RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date: 2026.05.08 16:44:12 +0530 5-WP-7269-2015.docx Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma a/w. Ms. Vaishali Malekar for the Petitioner in WP/9421/2016, WP/9422/2016 and for Respondent in WP7256/2015 and WP/7269/2015. Mr. Ramdas Hake Patil for the Respondent in WP/9422/2016. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 28th APRIL 2026 ORDER : Writ Petition No. 7269 of 2015 1. This petition is filed by the defendant to challenge the order passed by the trial court rejecting his application for dismissal of the suit under Order XI Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite orders passed by this court when the suit was pending in this court, the plaintiff has not given inspection of the documents which are mentioned at Sr. No.16(a) and 16(b) of the Chamber Summons filed by the defendant. He therefore submits that the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order XI Rule 21 of the CPC. 2. I have perused the papers of the petition. The documents at Sr. No. 16(a) and 16(b) form part of the plaint paragraphs 7 and 8. These paragraphs stand deleted in view 2/7 5-WP-7269-2015.docx of order dated 22nd July 2008 passed in Chamber Summons No. 171 of 2008 read with order passed on 18th January 2010. 3. Since the paragraphs where the said documents are referred to in the plaint already stand deleted, I do not see any reason for dismissing the suit on the ground of non- compliance. The trial court has therefore rightly rejected the notice of motion of the defendant praying for dismissal of the suit. 4. I do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Writ Petition No. 9421 of 2016 6. This writ petition is filed by the original plaintiff to challenge the observations in paragraph 5 of the order dated 9th April 2015 passed in Notice of Motion No. 4679 of 2014. By the impugned order the trial court has rejected the defendant’s application for dismissal of the suit under Order 3/7 5-WP-7269-2015.docx XI Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). The plaintiff is aggrieved by the observations in paragraph 5 of the said order, where the learned Judge has referred to non- compliance on the part of the plaintiff to give inspection of the documents. These observations in paragraph 5 refers to paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-reply of the plaintiff. 7. I have perused paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-reply. The said paragraph refers to the letter dated 18th February 2010 which is relied upon by the plaintiff to support its submission that inspection of documents was offered to the defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show any such letter on record which will indicate that inspection was offered. In such circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order with reference to the observations in paragraph 5. 8. By a separate order the Writ Petition No. 7269 of 2015 filed by the defendant challenging the same order, is dismissed. Hence, I do not see any reason to interfere with the observations in paragraph 5 of the impugned order, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4/7 5-WP-7269-2015.docx 9. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Writ Petition No. 7256 of 2015 10. This petition is filed by the defendant to challenge the order passed by the trial court rejecting his application for dismissal of the suit under Order XI Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite orders passed by this court when the suit was pending in this court, the plaintiff has not given inspection of the documents which are mentioned at Sr. No.16(a) and 16(b) of the Chamber Summons filed by the defendant. He therefore submits that the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order XI Rule 21 of the CPC. 11. I have perused the papers of the petition. The document at Sr. No. 16(a) and 16(b) form part of the plaint paragraphs 7 and 8. These paragraphs stand deleted in view of order dated 22nd July 2008 passed in Chamber Summons No. 69 of 2008 read with order passed on 18th January 2010. 12. Since the paragraphs where the said documents are referred to in the plaint already stand deleted, I do not see any reason for dismissing the suit on the ground of non- 5/7 5-WP-7269-2015.docx compliance. The trial court has therefore rightly rejected the notice of motion of the defendant praying for dismissal of the suit. 13. I do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. 14. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Writ Petition No. 9422 of 2016 15. This writ petition is filed by the original plaintiff to challenge the observations in paragraph 5 of the order dated 9th April 2015 passed in Notice of Motion No. 4619 of 2014. By the impugned order the trial court has rejected the defendant’s application for dismissal of the suit under Order XI Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). The plaintiff is aggrieved by the observations in paragraph 5 of the said order, where the learned Judge has referred to non- compliance on the part of the plaintiff to give inspection of the documents. These observations in paragraph 5 refer to paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-reply of the plaintiff. 6/7 5-WP-7269-2015.docx 16. I have perused paragraph 7 of the affidavit in reply. The said paragraph refers to the letter dated 18th February 2010 which is relied upon by the plaintiff to support its submission that inspection of documents was offered to the defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any such letter on record which will indicate that inspection was offered. In such circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order with reference to the observations in paragraph 5. 17. By a separate order Writ Petition No. 7256 of 2015 filed by the defendant challenging the same order is dismissed. 18. I do not see any reason to interfere with paragraph 5 of the impugned order, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 19. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 7/7