YASMINA MOLOOBHOY v. JEANNIE JAMSHED MADAM AND ANR
IA/3642/2026 · 2026-09-10
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7951 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7951 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
13. IA 3642-26 in S 383-25.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3642 OF 2026 IN SUIT NO. 383 OF 2025 Yasmina Moloobhoy ...Applicant In the matter between Sana Shiraz Moloobhoy ...Plaintiff Vs. Jeannie Jamshed Madan and Anr. ...Defendants Mr. Farshaz R.Mirza i/b FZB & Associates for the Applicant/Defendant No.2. Mr. Alpesh Sharma i/b Keystone Partners for the Respondent/Plaintiff. Mr. Tushar Cooper i/b Mulla & Mulla and CBC for the Defendnat No.1.
CORAM :
ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE :
10th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :
1. This Interim Application seeks condonation of delay of 19 days beyond the period of 90 days in filing the written statement. 2. When the matter is called out, Mr. Mirza, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant viz. the Defendant No.2, at the outset submits that in paragraph-6 of the Application, there is a typographical error as instead of 12th June, 2026, the date should be 20th April, 2026. 3. Let the amendments be carried out forthwith. Re-verification is dispensed with. Nikita Gadgil 1/4
13. IA 3642-26 in S 383-25.doc
4. Mr. Mirza, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the delay of 19 days beyond the 90 days’ deadline has occurred, as although the Applicant had affirmed her written statement on 8th May, 2026 well before the 90 days deadline i.e. 10th June, 2026, the same was neither tendered nor filed as the Applicant was awaiting for the matter to once again be listed before the Prothonotary & Senior Master, at which time the written statement would have been tendered. It is submitted that inadvertently the Defendant No.2 and her Advocate did not notice the direction to file the written statement within the statutory period contained in the order dated 24th March, 2026 of the Prothonotary & Senior Master. 5. Mr. Mirza submits that when the matter was listed on 20th April, 2026 for direction, the board was adjourned to 15th June, 2026. Thereafter, on 15th June, 2026, when the matter was called out and the Advocate for the Applicant tendered the written statement, the Prothonotary & Senior Master refused to take the same on record as the 90 days’ period from the service of the writ of summons was over. Mr. Mirza submits that this is despite the fact that the written statement of the Defendant No. 2 was affirmed, however, vide order dated 15th June, 2026 it was recorded that no further extension of time could be Nikita Gadgil 2/4
13. IA 3642-26 in S 383-25.doc granted. 6. It is submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate and no loss or injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if the delay of 19 days is condoned, subject to reasonable terms. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff leaves it to the orders of the Court. 8.
Although the explanation that the Advocate did not notice the direction in the order of the Prothonotary & Senior Master dated 24th March, 2026 to file the written statement within the statutory period, cannot be accepted as that is the role of the Advocate to read the orders of the Registry and the Court before advising the clients, however, it is also settled law that a litigant cannot be shut out on the ground of delay which is not inordinate. 9. This Court is therefore, inclined to allow this Application, but subject to payment of costs as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of Bharat Kalra Vs. Raj Kishan Chabra1, that where delay can be compensated by costs, it would not be reasonable to deny an application seeking the condonation of delay in filing the written statement. 1 2022 SCC Online SC 613. Nikita Gadgil 3/4
13. IA 3642-26 in S 383-25.doc
10. Accordingly, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai, within a period of two weeks, the delay of 19 days, is hereby condoned. 11. Subject to the above, let the written statement be accepted by the Registry and also be served upon the Plaintiff. 12. The Interim Application to accordingly stand allowed and
disposed as above.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) Nikita Gadgil 4/4 NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL Digitally signed by NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL Date: 2026.09.11 13:13:55 +0530