Allowed¶5

Meena Devkumar Gaba v. Ashok Nagpal

Bombay HC10 Jul 2025CHOL/272/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of caveat; condonation of delay of 107 days; Chamber Order CHOL/272/2025 in CTS(L)/13378/2023; rejection under O.S. Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections; overlooked listing on 05.12.2024; e-filing technical issue; Caveatrix to remove office objections within four weeks; Prothonotary and Senior Master Anil H. Laddhad; decided 10.07.2025; Applicant resides in Hong Kong; none appeared for Petitioner despite service.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 107 days in filing the Chamber Order condoned and the Chamber Order granted as prayed, restoring the captioned Caveat, conditional upon the Caveatrix removing office objections on the Petition and getting it registered/numbered within four weeks from the date of uploading of the order, failing which the Caveat stands rejected under O.S. Rule 986. ¶5

Meena Devkumar Gaba vs Ashok Nagpal — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 107 days in filing the Chamber Order seeking restoration of the Caveat (rejected on 05.12.2024 for non-compliance of office objections under O.S. Rule 986) should be condoned and the Caveat restored.

¶5

Court's answer

The reasons mentioned in the Affidavit appear genuine and the Applicant has satisfactorily explained the delay caused in filing the present Chamber Order.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

Delay of 107 days caused in filing the present Chamber Order is condoned and the present Chamber Order is granted as prayed, restoring the captioned Caveat.

¶5

Key takeaways

As a condition of restoration, the Caveatrix is to remove office objections on the Petition and get the same registered and/or numbered within four weeks from the date of uploading of the order, failing which the Caveat shall stand rejected for non-compliance of office objections under O.S. Rule 986.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chamber Order CHOL/272/2025 in CTS(L)/13378/2023, decided on 10.07.2025 by Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary and Senior Master: The Applicant's Caveat, listed on 05.12.2024, stood rejected under O.S. Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections after its listing was overlooked; the Caveat could not be uploaded on 16.05.2023 owing to a technical e-filing issue although the soft copy of the supporting Affidavit had been emailed to the Advocate that day. The Chamber Order seeking restoration, e-filed with a delay of 107 days, was allowed: finding the reasons in the Affidavit genuine and the delay satisfactorily explained, the Prothonotary and Senior Master condoned the 107-day delay and granted the Chamber Order as prayed, restoring the Caveat on condition that the Caveatrix removes office objections on the Petition and gets it registered/numbered within four weeks from the date of uploading of the order, failing which the Caveat will again stand rejected under O.S. Rule 986. Despite service (Affidavit of Service dated 27.06.2025), none appeared for the Petitioner.

¶1

Before : Anil H. Laddhad

¶2

Prothonotary and Senior Master

¶3

Date : 10^th July, 2025

¶4

FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :

¶5

) Ms. Rachana Kapasi, Advocate for Applicant 38. CHOL/272/2025 ) in CTS(L)/13378/2023 ) P.C. : The present Chamber Order is e-filed by the ) Applicant for setting aside Order dated 05.12.2024, ) rejecting captioned Caveat under O.S.Rule 986 for ) non-compliance of office objections. ) ) Affidavit of Service dated 27.06.2025 is already ) e-filed. Despite service, none present on behalf of ) Petitioner. ) ) Heard Ld. Advocate for the Applicant. Perused ) Affidavit in Support to the Chamber Order. It is ) contended that the Applicant resides in Hong Kong ) and on 16.05.2023 soft copy of Affidavit in support ) of Caveat was shared with Advocate over email, ) however, due to technical issue with e-filing, the ) Caveat could not be uploaded on the same day i.e. ) on 16.05.2023. It is further stated that the said ) Caveat was listed on 05.12.2024. Due to passage of ) time, listing of Caveat on 05.12.2024 was ) overlooked and the Caveat came to be rejected. ) The Applicant, therefore, prays for restoration of ) the captioned Caveat. ) ) Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that she will ) pursue with the caption Caveat diligently, and prays ) for restoration of the same by condoning delay of ) 107 days. ) ) Ld. Advocate was in process of removing office ) objections. Hence, reasons mentioned in Affidavit ) appear to be genuine. So also, the Applicant has ) explained delay caused in filing present Chamber ) Order satisfactorily. Therefore, delay of 107 days ) caused in filing present Chamber Order is condoned ) and present Chamber Order is granted as prayed. ) …. 2

¶6

Prothonotary and Senior Master Date : 10^th July, 2025

¶7

….. Continued

¶8

: 2 :

¶9

The Caveatrix to remove office objections on the ) Petition and get the same registered and/or ) numbered within four weeks from the date of ) uploading of order, failing Caveat to stand rejected ) for non-compliance of office objections under ) O.S.Rule 986. )

¶10

Prothonotary & Senior Master

¶11

Date : 10.07.2025

Meena Devkumar Gaba v. Ashok Nagpal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Devkumar Gaba v. Ashok Nagpal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashok Patel Rayani vs Jayantibhai Devshibhai Patel (Deceased)

Lata Prabhakar Bhandary vs Bakrabail Narasimha Adappa (Deceased)

Satyavaty Madhyanapu vs Madhyanapu Venkatrao alias Venkat Raomadhyanapu (Deceased)

Shri Diamond Center Premises Co-Op Society Ltd. vs D K Builders and Associates

Dipak Sudhakar Dusane vs Vijay Baliram Sonar (Deceased)

Salim Ali Mohd Shaikh vs Mariyam Bee Abdul Sattar Abbas