20-AO-894-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 894 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6858 OF 2026 Subodh Navratan Mathur and others ...Appellant(s) Versus Sucheta Kamlesh Madhekar and another ...Respondent(s) _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Amogh Singh a/w Mr. Nachiket Kulkarni i/b Mr. Priyank Chudasama, Advocates for the Appellants. Adv. K.T. Kukreja a/w Mr. Suraj Dube, Advocates for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Abhishek Mookherjee i/b Mr. Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM: AARTI SATHE, J. DATE: 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. 1. This Appeal From Order takes an exception to the order dated 21st July, 2026 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”) passed in Notice of Motion No. 2250 of 2026 in Short Cause Suit No. 1425 of 2026 by the Bombay City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Boriwali Division (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) rejecting the prayer for ad-interim reliefs primarily on the ground that the Respondent No. 1 had given an undertaking that she will not defame and post comments which are defamatory in character either against the Appellants or the Advocates of the Appellants. The aforesaid impugned order is an order in respect of a prayer for ad-interim order, which was sought by the Appellants before the Tiwari 20-AO-894-2026.DOC Trial Court. 2. Learned counsel on behalf of the Appellants has submitted that the Trial Court though has recorded an undertaking given by Respondent No. 1 that she will not communicate or publish anything which is defamatory in character, the said undertaking was only in respect of the Advocate representing the Appellants, however, her conduct of posting defamatory comments continues in so far as the Appellants are concerned. He has also sought to point out by way of a table at Page No. 73 of the present Appeal from Order, the defamatory content which Respondent No. 1 has posted from time to time from 04th April 2025 to 05th June 2026 primarily on Facebook which is owned by Respondent No. 2 i.e. Meta Platforms Incorporation. He has submitted that the aforesaid comments are causing grave harm to the reputation of the Appellants and this conduct of the Respondent No. 1 ought to be stopped/not allowed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 1 has vehemently submitted that there is no defamation that has been perpetrated in the facts of the present case, in as much as it is his contention that all that has been sought to be posted by the Respondent No. 1 is something which is truthful and correct in nature. He has also submitted that, in fact, after the passing of the impugned order, Respondent No. 1 has not posted anything on any social media platform including Facebook or circulated anything on the public domain which is defamatory in character against the Appellants. He further submits that considering this Appeal from Order is only against an ad-interim relief which was rejected by the Trial Court, and considering that the Notice of Motion is kept for hearing on 27th Tiwari 20-AO-894-2026.DOC October 2026, the aforesaid Appeal From Order is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel on behalf of the parties. I have also perused the proceedings and the impugned order. On a perusal of the proceedings and especially the table which the Appellants have reproduced at Page Nos. 73 to 79 of the Appeal from Order, it is evident that the Respondent No. 1 has been posting various chats/allegations against the Appellants pending the adjudication of the Notice of Motion and the Suit. This to the mind of this Court is a conduct which cannot be countenanced or encouraged by this Court, particularly when the dispute is pending before the Trial Court for adjudication. However, considering that the Notice of Motion is pending adjudication before the Trial Court, without delving into the merits of the matter or without forming a prima facie view, this Court directs the Trial Court to decide the aforesaid Notice of Motion as expeditiously as possible preferably on the date on which the Notice of Motion has been fixed for hearing. 5. It is also made clear that no defamatory statements or allegations will be published by Respondent No. 1 against the Appellants or their Advocate(s) on any social media platform including Facebook or circulated to any members of the society pending the adjudication of the aforesaid Notice of Motion. Learned counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 1 has, on instructions, given an undertaking to that effect, that his client will not continue doing such acts or do such acts which are defamatory in nature against the Appellants or their Advocate(s) till the adjudication of the aforesaid Notice of Motion. 6. This Court, therefore, directs the Trial Court to hear the Notice of Motion Tiwari 20-AO-894-2026.DOC on the next date of hearing. It is also directed that the parties would not seek any adjournment on the said date. All the contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. 7. Appeal form Order is, therefore, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Needless to clarify that this Court has not expressed any opinion or come to any prima facie view in respect of dispute or the nature of allegations that have been made by Respondent No. 1 on social media or on any other public platforms against the Appellants or their Advocate(s), however, it is made clear that such conduct would not be continued by the Respondent No. 1 against the Appellants till disposal of the Notice of Motion. 8. Interim Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs. (AARTI SATHE, J.) Tiwari