10-WP-11832-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11832 OF 2026 Phoenix Tower Coop Hsg Soc Ltd and Anr ..Petitioners Versus Phoenix Construction Company and Ors …Respondents Mr. Karan Bhide, with Aayesh Gandhi and Gaurang Samel, i/b Wadia Ghandy and Co, for the Petitioners. Mr. Parimal K Shroff, with D.V. Deokar and Dhruvesh Parikh, i/b Parimal K Shroff & Co, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Santosh Mali, for Respondent No.6-BMC. Ms. Rujuta Patil, with Yohaan Shah, i/b Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah, for Respondent No.7. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner-Plaintiff was constrained to institute this Petition seeking to quash and set aside the orders dated 17th July 2026 and 20th July 2026, whereby the learned Judge, City Civil Court seized with Suit No. 102105 of 2024, has directed the parties to seek further directions from the High Court as the suit has not been disposed of within the time-frame indicated by the Supreme Court in its order 7th October 2013. ARS 1/3 ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2026.09.28 10:59:34 +0530 10-WP-11832-2026.DOC 3. The Suit was initially instituted before this Court, on its Original Side. In the wake of the order passed at the interlocutory stage, a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26616 of 2013, came to be filed before the Supreme Court. By an order dated 7th October 2013, while dismissing the said Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court requested the High Court to expedite the trial, and hear and dispose of the suit, as far as possible, within a period of one year thereof. 4. Subsequently, in view of the enhancement in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, the suit came to be transferred to the City Civil Court. 5. On 17th July 2026, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, passed the order directing the parties to seek further directions from the High Court as the learned Judge was of the view that the until further directions are obtained from the High Court, in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 7th October 2013, the suit cannot be proceeded with. Thus, hearing of the suit was kept in abeyance 6. Evidently, the time-frame indicated by the Supreme Court in its order dated 7th October 2013 had expired much before the suit came to be transferred to the City Civil Court. It is true, the Supreme Court had given liberty to the parties to seek further directions from the High Court in case the suit was not disposed of within the time-frame indicated therein by the said order. However, that does not imply that, if ARS 2/3 10-WP-11832-2026.DOC the suit is not disposed within the said period, the proceedings in the suit shall remained in a state of suspended animation. 7. Nonetheless, to pave the way for an expeditious disposal of the suit, it is clarified that there is no impediment for the City Civil Court to proceed with the suit. Having regard to the pendency of the suit and the nature of the proceedings, the learned Judge seized with Suit No. 102105 of 2024 is requested to hear and decide the suit as expeditiously as possible, and, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of communication of this order. 8. Parties shall render the necessary cooperation to the City Civil Court in the expeditious disposal of the suit. 9. All contention of all the parties are expressly kept open. 10. Petition disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] ARS 3/3