Allowed¶41

Sulochana Rajguru v. Usha Parshar

Bombay HC23 Sept 2025CHOL/431/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of Caveat; rejection under O.S. Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections; Order dated 10.01.2025; Chamber Order CHOL/431/2025 in CTS(L)/19336/2024; delay of 154 days in filing Chamber Order; condonation sought; inaction and oversight of legal aid advocate Drupad Patil; Respondent's opposition; Caveat to be restored, Chamber Order granted as prayed; deadline 12.11.2025 to cure office objections, failing which Caveat stands rejected; decided by Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary and Senior Master, on 07.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Chamber Order granted as prayed - the Caveat is to be restored, subject to the Caveatrix removing the office objections and getting the Caveat registered and/or numbered on or before 12.11.2025, failing which the Caveat stands rejected under O.S.Rule 986. ¶41

Sulochana Rajguru vs Usha Parshar — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the Caveat, rejected by Order dated 10.01.2025 under O.S. Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections, ought to be restored despite the delay of 154 days in filing the Chamber Order seeking restoration.

¶21

Court's answer

After considering both sides and perusal of the pleadings, the Court held that the Caveat needs to be restored and granted the Chamber Order as prayed.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Restoration was made conditional: the Caveatrix must remove the office objections and get the Caveat registered and/or numbered on or before 12.11.2025, failing which the Caveat shall stand rejected for non-compliance of office objections under O.S.Rule 986.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chamber Order No. CHOL/431/2025 in CTS(L)/19336/2024, decided on 7 October 2025 by Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary and Senior Master. Subject: restoration of a Caveat that stood rejected by Order dated 10.01.2025 under O.S. Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections. The Chamber Order was e-filed by the Caveatrix/Applicant with a delay of 154 days. The Respondent's advocate opposed restoration, contending that although the Caveatrix and her advocate were well aware of the office objections raised in the Caveat, they failed to take appropriate steps within the stipulated period. The Caveatrix explained that she was initially represented by Advocate Drupad Patil, appointed for legal aid, whose inaction and oversight meant the office objections could not be removed in time, and pleaded serious prejudice if the Caveat were not restored; she prayed for condonation of the 154-day delay and grant of the Chamber Order. Held: after considering both sides and perusing the pleadings, the Caveat needs to be restored and the Chamber Order is granted as prayed. Condition imposed: the Caveatrix to remove the office objections and get the Caveat registered and/or numbered on or before 12.11.2025, failing which the Caveat shall stand rejected for non-compliance of office objections under O.S.Rule 986.

¶1

Before : Anil H. Laddhad

¶2

Prothonotary and Senior Master

¶3

Date : 7^th October, 2025

¶4

FOR RESTORATION :

¶5

CHOL/431/2025 IN CTS(L)/19336/2024

¶6

) Ms. Shruti Chalke i/b. Mr. Drupad Patil, Advocate ) for Org. Caveatrix

¶7

)

¶8

Mr. Shamshad Ahmad Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate ) for Respondent

¶9

)

¶10

)

¶11

P.C. : The present Chamber Order is e-filed by the Caveatrix / Applicant for restoration of the Caveat as vide Order dated 10.01.2025, Caveat got rejected under O.S. Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections.

¶12

)

¶13

)

¶14

)

¶15

)

¶16

)

¶17

)

¶18

Today, Ld. Advocate for Respondent is present.

¶19

)

¶20

)

¶21

Heard Ld. Advocates for both the sides. Ld. Advocate for Respondent opposed to restore the captioned Caveat on the ground that although the Caveatrix and Advocate were well aware about the office objections raised in the Caveat, they failed to take appropriate steps within stipulated period. There is a delay of 154 days in filing Chamber Order. He, therefore, argued that there is no substance in the Chamber Order and the same needs to be dismissed.

¶22

)

¶23

)

¶24

)

¶25

)

¶26

)

¶27

)

¶28

)

¶29

) ) )

¶30

)

¶31

) Ld. Advocate for Caveatrix argued that Caveatrix ) was initially represented by Advocate Drupad Patil ) who was appointed for legal aid. However, due ) to inaction and oversight on the part of the ) Advocate, office objections could not be removed ) in time and Caveat got rejected. It is further stated ) that delay in removing office objections is not ) intentional and serious prejudice would cause to ) the Caveatrix if Caveat is not allowed to be ) restored. )

¶32

)

¶33

) Ld. Advocate for Caveatrix submits that to ) ascertain the appropriate procedure, delay of 154 ) days has been caused in filing present Chamber

¶34

….. 2

¶35

…. Continued

¶36

Prothonotary and Senior Master Date : 7^th October, 2025

¶37

: 2 :

¶38

) Order, the same may be condoned and Chamber ) Order may be granted.

¶39

)

¶40

) After considering both the sides, after perusal of ) the Pleadings, in my view, the Caveat needs to be ) restored. Chamber Order is granted, as prayed. )

¶41

) The Caveatrix to remove office objections on the ) Caveat and get the same registered and/or ) numbered on or before 12.11.2025 , failing Caveat ) to stand rejected for non-compliance of office ) objections under O.S.Rule 986.

¶42

Date : 07.10.2025

¶43

Prothonotary & Senior Master

Sulochana Rajguru v. Usha Parshar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulochana Rajguru v. Usha Parshar

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

Lata Kashinath Panchal vs Late Shobha Kashinath Panchal Alias Shubhangi Kashinath Panchal (Deceased)

Tushar Durganand Phene vs Tara Durganand Phene (Deceased)

Varsha Rakesh Sharma vs Rakesh Suresh Sharma Deceased

Nirajkumar Nirmalkumar Rungta alias Niraj Nirmalkumar Rungta vs Purshottam Mahabirprasad Rungta

Bhikaji Namdeo Chavan vs Late Samidha Bhikaji Chavan

Kaushal Mayank Mehta vs Mayank Mangaldas Mehta