Allowed¶23

Nitin Ratansey Maskai v. Kamala Ratansey Maskai

Bombay HC5 Dec 2025CHOL/652/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay of 56 days; restoration of Interim Application rejected under O.S. Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections; Chamber Order CHOL/652/2025 in IAL/18768/2025 in Suit S/242/2025; office objections; Writ of Summons; no objection by defendant nos. 1 to 13; respondents 14 to 18 ex parte despite service; four-week compliance direction; Prothonotary & Senior Master; original side chamber order; order dated 06.08.2025 set aside in effect by fresh grant.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 56 days in filing the Chamber Order condoned; Chamber Order granted as prayed (restoration of the Interim Application); applicant to remove office objections, if any, and get the Interim Application registered/numbered within four weeks from upload of the order, failing which it shall stand rejected under O.S. Rule 986. ¶23

Nitin Ratansey Maskai vs Kamala Ratansey Maskai — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 56 days in filing the Chamber Order seeking restoration of the Interim Application should be condoned. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

Considering the grounds raised in the Affidavit and the no objection of defendant nos. 1 to 13, the delay of 56 days caused in filing the present Chamber Order is condoned.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The present Chamber Order is granted as prayed, i.e., the captioned Interim Application is restored.

¶23

Key takeaways

The applicant is directed to remove office objections on the Interim Application, if any, and get it registered and/or numbered within four weeks from the date of uploading of the order, failing which the Application shall stand rejected for non-compliance of office objections under O.S. Rule 986.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chamber Order (CHOL/652/2025) in Interim Application IAL/18768/2025 in Suit S/242/2025: The Interim Application had been rejected by Order dated 06.08.2025 for non-compliance of office objections under O.S. Rule 986. The applicant filed the present Chamber Order to set aside that rejection, explaining that the advocate on record was first engaged in removing office objections on the Suit (now numbered) and then in issuing the Writ of Summons, and that although office objections on the Interim Application were complied with and approved by the department, the Application stood disposed of; the delay of 56 days in filing the Chamber Order was inadvertent. All defendants were served; none appeared for respondent nos. 14 to 18; advocates for defendant nos. 1 to 13 gave no objection to restoration. Delay of 56 days condoned and the Chamber Order granted as prayed. The applicant is to remove office objections, if any, and get the Interim Application registered/numbered within four weeks from upload of the order, failing which it shall stand rejected afresh under O.S. Rule 986.

¶1

Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 05^th December, 2025

¶2

FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :

¶3

24 CHOL/652/2025 in

¶4

IAL/18768/2025

) )

)

)

Mr. Manek Kalyaniwalla a/w. Prapti Shetty and Prashant Shetty i/b. TPS Law, Advocate for the applicant.

¶10

S/242/2025 ) Mr. Aaditya Pandit i/b. Mehta and Padamsey, ) Advocate for defendant nos. 1 to 12. ) ) Ms. Tejashree Munot i/b. Jaymala Ostwal, ) Advocate for defendant no. 13. )

¶11

) P.C.: The present Chamber Order is e-filed by the ) applicant for setting aside Order dated ) 06.08.2025, rejecting captioned Interim ) Application under O.S.Rule 986 for non) compliance of office objections under O.S.Rule ) 986.

¶12

¶13

Ld. Advocate for the applicant tenders hard copy of Affidavit of Service dated 01.12.2025, which is taken on record. Ld. Advocate made a statement that all defendants have been served with the Chamber Order. Statement is accepted.

¶14

)

¶15

¶16

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

¶17

None appeared for respondent nos. 14 to 18 despite service.

¶18

Heard ld. Advocate for the applicant. Perused Affidavit in Support, contents of which are self-explanatory. It is contended that Advocate on record was engaged in removing office objections on Suit, which is now numbered. Thereafter, ld. Advocate was busy in issuing Writ of Summons in the matter. It is further contended that office objections on Interim Application were complied with and approved by the department, however, Application was disposed of. It is further contended that inadvertently, delay of 56 days caused in filing Chamber Order, which may be condoned and present Chamber Order may be allowed.

¶19

2 Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 05^th December, 2025

¶20

contd…. ) CHOL/652/2025 ) in ) IAL/18768/2025 ) in ) S/242/2025 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

¶21

Date : 05.12.2025

¶22

Ld. Advocates for defendant nos. 1 to 13 give no objection for restoration of captioned Interim Application.

¶23

Considering grounds raised in Affidavit and no objection of defendant nos. 1 to 13, delay of 56 days caused in filing present Chamber Order is condoned and present Chamber Order is granted as prayed.

¶24

The applicant to remove office objections of Interim Application, if any, and get the same registered and/or numbered within four weeks from the date of uploading of order, failing Application to stand rejected for noncompliance of office objections under O.S.Rule 986.

¶25

Prothonotary and Senior Master

¶26

Digitally signed by RAJEEV RAJEEV VIJAY VIJAY ACHARYA ACHARYA Date:2025.12.06 10:40:25 +0530

Nitin Ratansey Maskai v. Kamala Ratansey Maskai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Ratansey Maskai v. Kamala Ratansey Maskai

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

Similar cases

Ms. Mrinalini Anthony Vs Mrs. Mrinalini Sylvia Ramaswami @ Dasu Mrinalini (Deceased)

Kamaljit Singh Harcharan Singh Sandhu vs Mahinder Kaur Harcharan Singh Sandhu (Deceased)

Auditra Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Offbeat Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Apeksha Gaurav Jain vs Gaurav Suresh Jain

Mahalakshmy Viswanath vs Viswanath Ramnath Manjeri

Tina Arvind Patel vs Arvind Maganlal Patel