41-WP7832-2026.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7832 OF 2026 Sumandevi Chandulal Talera ...Petitioner Versus Rishabh Subhash Talera and ors. …Respondents Mr. Aashit Kankariya, i/b Sheetal Mishra, for the Petitioner. Ms. Ketki Gadkari, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Jamshed Mistry, i/b Ronita Bhattacharya Bector, for Respondent No.5. Mr. Arshad Shaikh, Senior Advocate, a/w Pranil Lahigade, i/b Ronita Bhattacharya Bector, for Respondent No.6. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Oral Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 5th February, 2026, whereby the learned Civil Judge has recalled an earlier order dated 21st December, 2023, whereby the suit came to be restored. 3. The Plaintiff passed away on 19 December 2017. In view of the death of the original plaintiff, the issue of abatement of the suit arose for consideration of the trail Court as admittedly the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff were not brought on record within the stipulated period. Hence, on 3 October 2018, the learned Civil Judge, after recording that no steps were 1/4 2026:BHC-AS:38835 41-WP7832-2026.DOC taken to bring the legal representatives of the deceased – Plaintiff on record, disposed the suit as abated. 4. From the perusal of the said order dated 21 December 2023, it appears that, under an incorrect impression that the Supreme Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to appeal (C) No(s). 13947 of 2015 dated 6 May 2016, has directed the restoration of the suit, the learned Civil Judge had restored the suit. 5. It appears, the Petitioner, who is the wife of late Plaintiff, filed an application under Order XXII Rule 9(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the abatement and dismissal of the suit. However, the said application also came to be dismissed by an order dated 19 October 2019, purportedly for non-removal of office objections. The Petitioner thus filed Civil Misc. Application No.1210 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the said order dated 19 October 2019 and another application for restoration of the earlier application dismissed on 19 October 2019 being Misc. Civil Application No.1383 of 2023. 6. By an order dated 29 September 2023, the trial Court allowed the said application for condonation of delay. That order was assailed before this Court in CRA(ST) No.1218 of 2024. By 2/4 41-WP7832-2026.DOC an order dated 21 February 2024, the said CRA came to be dismissed. 7. In the meanwhile, by the aforesaid order dated 21 December 2023, the suit came to be restored by the trial Court. Thus, the Respondent No.1 – Defendant No.1 filed an application before the Trial Court (Exh.87) seeking recall of the said order dated 21 December 2023, as there was no such order passed by the Supreme Court directing the restoration of the suit. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge recalled the order dated 21 December 2023, and restored the earlier order dated 3 October 2018, whereby the suit stood abated and disposed. 8. The situation which thus obtains is that, the application for restoration of the application filed by the Petitioner under Order XXII Rule 9(2) of the Code, awaits adjudication, as the trial Court has condoned the delay in taking out the said application by an order dated 29 September 2023, which has been affirmed by this Court. 9. Incontrovertibly, there was no order by the Supreme Court directing the restoration of the suit by setting aside the abatement. Thus, the said application being Misc. Civil Application No.1838 of 2023 for restoration of earlier application preferred under Order XXII Rule 9(2) of the Code, and, in the 3/4 41-WP7832-2026.DOC event said application is allowed, the main application for setting aside the abatement and dismissal of the suit, are required to be decided by the trial Court. 10. In the aforesaid backdrop, having regard to the pendency of the proceedings which commenced with the institution of the suit on 24 February 2012, and the peripheral issues on which the parties have been litigating, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the learned Civil Judge to decide the pending applications, as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. 11. All contentions of the parties in regard to the pending applications are kept open for consideration. 12. The Writ Petition stands disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 4/4 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 23/09/2026 11:02:28