Renuka 18-WP-13348-2016.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13348 OF 2016 Shri. Prakash Nagpal Of Bombay ...Petitioner V/s. Shri. Ratilal G. Busa and Ors. ...Respondents ________________ Ms. Eshwaree Suraj Kudalkar i/b Mr. Suraj S. Kudalkar for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Dhole with Ms. Anuja Dhole-Trilokekar and Ms. Pushpa Shinde for Respondents. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 1 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) The Petition challenges order dated 7 February 2014 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dismissing Chamber Summons 2327 of 2013. The Chamber Summons was filed for setting aside the abatment and to bring on record legal representatives of Defendant No. 1. 2) I have heard Ms. Kudalkar the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Dhole the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. Page No. 1 of 3 1 SEPTEMBER 2026 2026:BHC-AS:35962 Renuka 18-WP-13348-2016.docx 3) Defendant No. 1 passed away on 14 December 2012. On 18 January 2013, the Advocate for Defendant No. 1 informed the Court that Defendant No. 1 had expired on 14 December 2012. However, apparently names of Defendant No. 1 were not disclosed on 18 January 2013. On 16 July 2013 Plaintiff's Advocate informed the Court that details of legal heirs were awaited from the Advocate for Defendant No. 1. The Advocate for Defendant No. 1 ultimately furnished the names and addresses of legal heirs of Defendant No. 1 on 18 September 2013. The Chamber Summons for bringing on record legal heirs of Defendant No. 1 was filed on 28 October 2013. 4) Considering the above position, in my view, there was sufficient cause for condoning insignificant delay in applying for bringing on record legal heirs of Defendant No. 1. The suit is filed in the year 1994 and still continues to be pending before the City Civil Court for the last 32 long years. Considering this position, some delay in applying for bringing all legal heirs of Defendant No. 1 on record ought to have been condoned. It is unfortunate that the Trial Court's refusal to condone the delay and denial of opportunity to bring on record legal heirs of Defendant No. 1 has resulted in pendency of the suit for last 12 long years. 5) The Plaintiff also has to share the blame for delaying the decision of his own suit. Plaintiff initially filed Appeal from Order No. 810 of 2014 challenging the order dated 7 February 2014. After realising that the A.O. was not maintainable, the same was withdrawn on 26 October 2016 with liberty to file a Writ petition. This is how the present Page No. 2 of 3 1 SEPTEMBER 2026 Renuka 18-WP-13348-2016.docx Writ petition is filed. The Writ Petition has remained pending before this Court for the last 10 long years. In the process, decision of the Suit is withheld. Therefore, while granting opportunity to the Plaintiff to bring on record legal heirs of Defendant No. 1, some costs are required to be imposed on the Petitioner/Plaintiff. 6) Accordingly, the order dated 7 February 2014 is set aside. Chamber Summons No. 2327 of 2013 is made absolute in terms of prayers made therein. The Petitioner shall pay to Respondent No. 1 costs of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of three weeks. 7) Writ Petition is allowed in above terms with costs as indicated above. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 1 SEPTEMBER 2026 Signed by: Renuka S Thakur Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 02/09/2026 13:35:38