903. CIVIL WP-10390-22.odt Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10390 OF 2022 Ankit Sales Corporation & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Akai Consumers Electronics India Ltd .. Respondent ....................  Mr. Purushottam G. Chavan, Advocate for Petitioner ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : JUNE 12, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Chavan, learned Advocate for Petitioners - Org. Defendants. 2. Petitioners before me are Defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 855 of 2006. Writ Petition challenges three orders i.e. order dated 08.01.2020 passed by learned Trial Court directing 'No Cross / evidence closed' of the Defendants; second order dated 25.02.2020 passed by learned Trial Court in Review Application seeking review of the order dated 08.01.2020 and third order dated 15.11.2021 rejecting further Application of Defendants seeking review and setting aside of 'No Cross' order. 3. Briefly stated, Plaintiff Company has filed Special Civil Suit No. 855 of 2006 against Defendants for recovery of amount of Rs. 18,00,771.72 along with interest on account of electronic goods sold, 1 of 7 903. CIVIL WP-10390-22.odt supplied and delivered by Plaintiff to Defendants from time to time. Suit was filed in 2006. Defendants filed their written statement and resisted the Suit principally on the ground that claim of the Plaintiff Company was false, frivolous and self created evidence and Defendants have had certain other transactions between the parties whereby Defendants have placed blank cheques for security purposes with the Plaintiff which were dishonoured. Defendants have genuine receipt of the cheques which were given as security deposit which were dishonoured. In short, Plaintiff has filed money claim for recovery of money. 4. Mr. Chavan would submit that matter was placed for evidence and cross-examination of Plaintiff but the Court passed 'No cross' order due to absence of Defendants and their Advocate. Reason stated in the order dated 08.01.2020 is that since the Advocate and Defendants are absent when called out repeatedly, 'No cross' order was passed against Defendants. Defendants thereafter filed Application below Exh. 140 immediately for setting aside of 'No cross' order. That Application was rejected by order dated 25.02.2020. Defendants being aggrieved filed Review Application for setting aside of 'No cross' order and 'evidence closed' order by filing Application below Exh. 144. This Application was also rejected by order dated 15.11.2021. Hence, the present Petition. 2 of 7 903. CIVIL WP-10390-22.odt 5. Mr Chavan has vehemently argued that there was genuine and bonafide reason for the Defendants due to circumstances beyond their control which led to passing of the first order dated 08.01.2020. He would submit that one of the partners of Defendant No. 1 is a sleeping / dormant partner who did not participate in day to day activities and she has not issued any cheque whatsoever which is claimed to have been issued by Plaintiff. He would submit that on merits Defendants have a triable case since this is not a case where Defendants have accepted the transaction between the parties leading to sell and delivery of the alleged electronic goods. He would submit that reason given by learned Trial Court while passing the impugned orders is that Defendants' approach is casual and negligent. He would submit that save and except this reason, there is no other reason attributed to the Defendants. He would submit that due to unavailability of certain important documents, cross-examination of Plaintiff's witness could not take place. He would submit that by virtue of the impugned orders Defendants' valuable right of cross-examination of Plaintiff stands ousted and defeated and more specifically Defendants are completely non-suite. He would therefore persuade the Court to allow the present Petition which is pending since 2022. 6. He would also draw my attention to the order dated 10.10.2022. He would submit that after the Petition was filed on 3 of 7 903. CIVIL WP-10390-22.odt 06.09.2022, the Court passed the aforesaid order directing the Petitioners to deposit cost of Rs. 25,000/- in the Registry within a week for grant of stay to the Suit proceedings. He would submit that Defendants have abided the said order and deposited the said amount pursuant to which ad-interim stay of the Suit proceedings before the Trial Court was granted by learned Trial Court. He would place on record Application dated 12.06.2026 on behalf of Petitioners for recall of the order dated 10.10.2022 passed by this Court in present Writ Petition and seek return of the amount of cost deposited as per the said order along with accrued interest therein. He would submit that amount of Rs. 25,000/- was directed by Court to be deposited in order to show bonafides of Defendants in present Petition and it was not attributed towards any dereliction / negligent on the part of Petitioners. He would therefore persuade the Court to return the said amount and pass appropriate directions to the Registry to return the said amount along with accrued interest if the Court is disposing of the present Writ Petition. 7. I have heard Mr. Chavan and perused the entire record of the case before me. Respondent - Org. Plaintiff has chosen not to remain present. Writ Petition cannot be kept on adjourning. Limited grievance in the Writ Petition is non-suiting the Defendants in view of 'No-cross' and 'Evidence closed' order passed by learned Trial Court. 4 of 7 903. CIVIL WP-10390-22.odt Mr. Chavan has placed before me order dated 08.01.2020 which is a handwritten order on the face of record by learned Trial Judge directing closing of evidence and no cross order against Defendants due to absence of their Advocate and after repeatedly calling out of the matter. This is the only reason given in the said order. Said order, however, virtually has non-suited the Defendants. In the event if Defendants are not able to cross-examine the Plaintiff, defence raised by them in the written statement will get a complete walk over. It is true that delay and laches affect the disposal of the case, however in a given case where bonafides are shown by party, the Court will have to adopt a liberal approach. 8. In the present case, it is seen that immediately after passing of 'No cross' and 'Evidence closed' order on 08.01.2020, Defendants after having knowledge of the same on 23.01.2020 filed Application below Exh. 140 for setting aside the said order. Learned Trial Court has dismissed that Application by order dated 25.02.2020. I have perused the said order. Further Review Application filed below Exh. 144 has also been dismissed by order dated 15.11.2021. If these periods are seen when the impugned orders have been passed, it is seen that the impugned orders have been passed during the Covid-19 pandemic period when there were restrictions on movement of persons and parties as also the Courts were functioning virtually. 5 of 7 903. CIVIL WP-10390-22.odt 9. After considering the submissions made by Mr. Chavan and on overall consideration of the matter, I am of the clear opinion that all the three impugned orders are extremely harsh orders which virtually oust the defence of Defendants and non-suit the Defendants completely. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, said orders are not sustainable and are therefore quashed and set aside. Applications filed below Exhs. 140 and 144 stand allowed. Resultantly learned Trial Court is directed to permit the Defendants to cross- examine the witness of Plaintiff in accordance with law. 10. All contentions of Plaintiff as well as Defendants are expressly kept open without expressing any opinion on merits. 11. Insofar as the Application seeking refund of Rs. 25,000/- along with accrued interest is concerned, it is seen that on 10.10.2022, this Court directed the Petitioners to deposit the aforesaid amount for deferring hearing of the Suit before the Trial Court. Save and except this noting, there is no other reason given in the said order. Thus, it is prima facie seen that the amount of deposit / cost was directed by Court without there being any dereliction on the part of Defendants. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to accept the request made by Mr. Chavan and allow the Application dated 12.06.2026 filed today before me and recall the order of deposit of Rs. 25,000/- directed by this Court on 10.10.2022. Registry is directed to refund the amount of 6 of 7 903. CIVIL WP-10390-22.odt Rs. 25,000/- along with accrued interest thereon to the Petitioners - Org. Defendants who are the Petitioners before me on the basis of server copy of this order when approached. 12. With the above directions, Writ Petition stands allowed and disposed. Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 7 of 7 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.06.12 17:05:13 +0530