Vaishnavi 36-WP-12238-2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12238 OF 2017 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2111 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 12238 OF 2017 Mohammed Aquil Mohamed Ismail Qureshi and Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Ashish Patwardhan and Ors. ...Respondents ________________ Mr. Nainesh Amin a/w Ms. Aditi Karanjkar i/b N.N. Amin and Co., for Petitioners. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 19 AUGUST 2026 P.C.: 1) By this Petition, Petitioner challenges order dated 18 August 2017 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, allowing draft Chamber Summons and directing deletion of several paragraphs from the Affidavit of Evidence. 2) I have heard Mr. Amin, the learned counsel appearing for petitioners. Page No. 1 of 3 19 August 2026 Vaishnavi 36-WP-12238-2017 3) It appears that, in pursuance of notices issued by this Court, Defendant No. 3 had appeared through an Advocate on 15 July 2026. However, today none has appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 4 is already deleted. Service on Respondent No. 5 has been effected private notice, which is apparent from the affidavit of service dated 15 July 2026. However, none has appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 5. 4) Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 had tendered the draft Chamber Summons in which the impugned order has been passed. It appears that the same Advocate represents Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 before the City Civil Court. The fact that the private notice is issued to Respondent No. 5 and an appearance has been made on behalf of Respondent No. 3 make it clear that Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are aware of filing of the present Petition. However, they have taken a chance of not appearing before this Court. The Petition is pending since the year 2017. For over 9 years, the decision of the suit in the meantime is withheld. In my view therefore, it would be appropriate to proceed ahead with merits of the Petition without awaiting appearance on the part of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 any further. 5) Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the Trial Court has apparently treated paragraphs 4 (e), 4(j) (i)) to (ix) and paragraph 10 to be the pleadings in Chamber Summons/Notice of Motion filed in Suit No. 6439 of 2003. The learned counsel for the Petitioner invites the attention of the Court to the fact that the said events narrated in paragraph 4 (e), 4(j) (i)) to (ix) and paragraph 10 relate to Chamber Page No. 2 of 3 19 August 2026 Vaishnavi 36-WP-12238-2017 Summons filed in previous Suit No. 1024 of 1972. Thus, the very premise on which the impugned order is passed appears to be incorrect. 6) Accordingly, impugned order dated 18 August 2017 is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. With disposal of the Writ Petition, nothing survives in the Interim Application and the same is also disposed of. 7) Considering the fact that the suit is pending since the year 2003, the Trial Court shall accord due priority for expeditious disposal of the same. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 19 August 2026