27 WP 12126 OF 2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12126 OF 2026 Shirinbai Hasanali Paperwala Since deceased through the LRs. 1(a) Mrs. Masooma Shabbir Tinwala And Ors. … Petitioners Versus Utron Hamza Kadam and Ors …. Respondents Mr. Pradeep Thorat a/w. Ms. Aditi Naikare, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Utttam M. Parmar, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATED: 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026. PC:- 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has particularly drawn my attention to the impugned order at pages 106 and 107. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has also shown me the order passed by the trial Court, wherein it is clearly observed that the trial Court was considering a delay condonation application filed in Marji Application No. 210 of 2022. The trial Court dismissed the delay condonation application, and accordingly, Marji Application No. 210 of 2022 stood automatically dismissed. Rajeshri Aher RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Digitally signed by RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Date: 2026.09.30 12:13:52 +0530 27 WP 12126 OF 2026.DOC 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C. Prabhakar Rao and Anr. v. Sama Mahipal Reddy and Anr.1, and submitted that the Appellate Court in the Appeal filed by the Respondent, having condoned the delay in filing the Marji Application, at the best could have restored Marji Application No. 210 of 2022 for hearing on merits. The order of the Appellate Court disposing of the Marji Application itself is not permissible in law. 3. I have considered the submissions. Having perused the reason given in the case, the order condoning the delay is not interfered with. However, the second part of the order of the Appellate Court disposing of the Marji Application is set aside. The Marji Application would stand restored, and the trial Court will have to decide the Marji Application on its own merits. 4. The Supreme Court, in the case of C. Prabhakar Rao (Supra), particularly observed in paragraphs 14 to 17 that the High Court, while exercising powers of revision in the facts of that case, could have only condoned the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, and could not have disposed of 1 (2025) 9 SCC 716 Rajeshri Aher 27 WP 12126 OF 2026.DOC the Application under Order IX Rule 13. The relevant paragraphs in the case of of C. Prabhakar Rao (Supra) read thus: “14. To start with, facts and events relating to passing of an ex parte decree are distinct from the facts and events relating to the delayed filing of the application for setting aside of the ex parte decree. Secondly, the procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree will again be distinct from the procedure for condoning the delayed filing of the application to set aside the ex parte decree. Thirdly, the adjudication and determination of a court with respect to setting aside the ex parte decree are independent of the adjudication with respect to condoning the delay. Finally, the remedies against these orders are independent and one remedy would not subsume the other. They must be adopted and pursued independently. This much clarity is sufficiently borne by our practice and procedure of law. The order passed by the High Court setting aside the ex parte decree when no revision is filed against the said order of the trial court in IA No. 1163 of 2021 cannot be sustained. 15…. 16…. 17. The High Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction and came to the conclusion that the delay in filing the application in setting aside the ex parte decree should be condoned. We are not inclined to interfere with this order in exercise of our power under Article 136 of the Constitution. However, the later portion of the abovereferred order is unsustainable as the High Court proceeded to automatically restore the suit and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.” Rajeshri Aher 27 WP 12126 OF 2026.DOC 5. The Supreme Court has in the case of C. Prabhakar Rao (Supra), has observed that the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, came to the conclusion that the delay in filing the Application for setting aside the ex-parte decree should be condoned, and the Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with this order in exercise of its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. However, the Supreme Court observed that the later portion of the High Court's order is unsustainable, as it had proceeded automatically to restore the suit and directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. 6. In the instant case, this Court finds that the Appellate Court has done exactly the same. 7. In that view of the matter, the delay in filing Marji Application No. 210 of 2022 stands condoned. The trial Court would now decide Marji Application No. 210 of 2022 under Order IX Rule 13 independently and in accordance with law. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.) Rajeshri Aher