501-wp--271-2016.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 271 OF 2016 M/s. J.M.C. and Maghani Builders and Ors … Petitioners vs. Jamuna Darshan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and Anr … Respondents Mr. Ajay Panicker a/w. Ms. Lavanay Panicker and Ms. Binu Karnaith i/b. Ajay Law Associates for the Petitioners. Ms. Sukeshi Bhandari a/w. Mr. Akshay Chauhan for Respondent No.1. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 6th JANUARY 2026 ORDER: 1. Not on board. Taken on the production board in view of the production praecipe submitted on behalf of the petitioner. 2. This praecipe is filed for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 24th December 2025. On 24th December 2025, the following order was passed: “1. This petition is filed by the developer to challenge the order passed by the Competent Authority under Section 5A of the The Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Page no. 1 of 5 varsha VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2026.01.09 13:28:53 +0530 501-wp--271-2016.doc Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (‘MOFA’) granting deemed conveyance for part of the area out of the larger area to the society. 2. Writ Petition No. 2826 of 2016 filed by the society challenging the same order is permitted to be withdrawn by passing a separate order. 3. In view of withdrawal of Writ Petition No. 2826 of 2016, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw this petition. Leave granted. 4. Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn.” 3. The praecipe dated 6th January 2026, is filed for speaking to the minutes. The praecipe refers to the order dated 18th December 2025, when time was granted to the petitioners to take instructions on whether they were agreeable to file the suit by withdrawing the petitions. The praecipe further states that, when the present petition and the petition filed by the society were called out on 24th December 2025, the advocates for both petitioners in both petitions conveyed to this court their willingness to withdraw their respective petitions, with liberty to file suits. The praecipe further states that the order passed in Writ Petition No. 271 of 2016 makes no mention of the liberty Page no. 2 of 5 501-wp--271-2016.doc granted by this court to file the suit after withdrawal of the present petition. 4. A similar praecipe was filed yesterday, i.e., on 5th January 2026, which was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to take appropriate steps. Today, a similar praecipe is filed, though liberty was granted yesterday to take appropriate steps. 5. Although Mr. Ajay Panicker’s appearance is recorded in the order dated 24th December 2025, Ms Lavanya Panicker appeared before the court, and Mr. Ajay Panicker never appeared on 24th December 2025. Yesterday and today, Mr. Ajay Panicker appears and makes a statement that a request was made on 24th December 2025, for the withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file a suit; however, the same was not recorded in the order. Though he never appeared on 24th December 2025, Mr. Ajay Panicker makes a statement that his colleague, Ms. Lavanya Panicker, who appeared on 24th December 2025, had made a request to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a suit. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent society submits that no such prayer for liberty was made on 24th December 2025. She submits that the petitioners have already filed two separate suits, one against the owner and the other Page no. 3 of 5 501-wp--271-2016.doc against the society. She further submits that this is an attempt to deprive society of its rights. 7. I distinctly recollect that the prayer was made to withdraw the petition in view of the permission granted to the society to withdraw the Writ Petition No. 2826 of 2016. There was never any prayer made for liberty to file a suit. It was also submitted that since society had challenged the order as only part of the larger area was conveyed, the petitioners had filed the petition challenging even the conveyance of the part area. 8. It is unfortunate that Mr. Ajay Panicker vehemently insists that Ms. Panicker, on 24th December 2025, had made a request for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file a suit; however, this court did not record it in the order. What transpired in the court on 24th December 2025 is recorded in the order. The request that was made by Ms. Lavanaya Panicker is recorded in the order, which is reproduced in the above paragraph. 9. By way of a praecipe and by making oral submissions before the court, Mr. Ajay Panicker and Ms. Lavanya Panicker seek to controvert the correctness of what is recorded in the order dated 24th December 2025. I find no mistake in the Order that can be corrected by way of speaking to the minutes. The Page no. 4 of 5 501-wp--271-2016.doc praecipe is therefore rejected. 10. After the passing of this order, Mr. Panicker again submitted that the order records an incorrect statement on behalf of the petitioners. This amounts to an allegation against the court that the advocate's incorrect submissions were recorded in the order. In view of this allegation, the matter should be referred to the Bar Council for appropriate action. However, I refrain from making any such reference. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 5 of 5