Disposed¶20

Bhaktee Modgil v. Sonal Vikram Budhraja (Also Known as Sonal Thareja

Bombay HC16 Jun 2025IA/2118/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (Kamal Khata, J., 16-06-2025), IA No. 2118 of 2025 in Suit (L) No. 971 of 2024 — restoration of suit dismissed by common order dated 20-03-2025 following court-fee objection; delay condoned; dismissal order quashed/set aside and suit restored; Prothonotary and Senior Master directed to determine court fees within four weeks; no statute or precedent cited; no quantum awarded.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b): delay (if any) in filing condoned; order dated 20 March 2025 dismissing Suit (L) No. 971 of 2024 quashed/set aside and the Suit restored to the file of the Court; Prothonotary and Senior Master directed to decide the court-fees application within four weeks. ¶20

Bhaktee Modgil vs Sonal Vikram Budhraja (Also Known as Sonal Thareja — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay (if any) in filing the application for restoration of Suit (L) No. 971 of 2024 should be condoned. +1 more

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Being satisfied with the reasons given, the Court allowed the Application in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), thereby condoning the delay (if any), quashing/setting aside the order dated 20 March 2025 dismissing Suit (L) No. 971 of 2024, and restoring the Suit to the file of the Court.

¶13

Key takeaways

The Prothonotary and Senior Master was directed to hear and dispose of the Plaintiffs' application for determination of court fees within a period of four weeks.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim Application No. 2118 of 2025 in Suit (L) No. 971 of 2024 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction; Kamal Khata, J.; order dated 16 June 2025): The Applicants/Plaintiffs sought restoration of Suit (L) No. 971 of 2024, which stood disposed of/dismissed by a common order dated 20 March 2025 after a court-fee objection; the four-week period for removal of objections expired on 17 April 2025 and the restoration application was moved on 22 April 2025, with the court-fees issue pending before the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The Court, satisfied with the reasons given, allowed the Application in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) — condoning the delay (if any) and quashing/setting aside the order dated 20 March 2025 so as to restore the Suit to the file of the Court — and directed the Prothonotary and Senior Master to hear and dispose of the Plaintiffs' application for determination of court fees within four weeks. Interim Application disposed of accordingly.

¶1

30-OSIA-2118-2025.DOC

¶2

sbw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2118 OF 2025 IN SUIT (L) NO. 971 OF 2024

¶4

Bhaktee Modgil & Ors. … Applicants/
Plaintiffs
v/s.
Sonal Vikram Budhraja & Ors. … Respondents/
Defendants

Mr. Rashid Khan i/by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh for the
Applicants/Plaintiffs.
__
CORAM : Kamal Khata, J.
DATED : 16 th June 2025.

¶5

P.C.:-

¶6

Mr. Khan, learned Advocate for the Applicants seeks restoration of the Suit (L) No.971 of 2024. He submits that the Plaintiffs had raised a grievance towards the objection for payment of court fees and the matter was to be considered by the Prothonotary and Senior Master.

¶7

In the meantime, the matter was disposed of by the common order dated 20^th March 2025. The common order

¶8

Digitally signed SANDHYA by SANDHYABHAGU BHAGU WADHWA WADHWA Date:2025.06.18 19:51:48 +0530

¶9

Page 1 of 3

¶10

30-OSIA-2118-2025.DOC

¶11

directed objections to be removed within a period of four weeks that came to an end on 17^th April 2025. He submits that they have moved the present Application on 22^nd April 2025. He further submits that the issue of court fees is pending before the Prothonotary and Senior Master.

¶12

Having considered the above submissions made by the

¶13

learned Advocates for the Plaintiffs, I am satisfied about the reasons given and allow the Application in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) which are as follows:

¶14

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to

¶15

condone the delay (if any) in filing this application.

¶16

(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and/or set aside the Order dated 20^th March 2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court dismissing the Suit No.(L) 971 of 2024 and be pleased to restore the Suit No.(L) 971 of 2024 back to file of this Hon’ble Court.”

¶17

The Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to hear and dispose of the said Plaintiffs Application for determination of court fees within a period of four weeks from today.

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

30-OSIA-2118-2025.DOC

¶20

Interim Application is disposed of in the aforesaid

¶21

terms.

¶22

(Kamal Khata, J.)

¶23

Page 3 of 3

Bhaktee Modgil v. Sonal Vikram Budhraja (Also Known as Sonal Thareja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaktee Modgil v. Sonal Vikram Budhraja (Also Known as Sonal Thareja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amol Dattatray Jadhav vs Dattatray Tukaram Jadhav (deceased)

Rajashree Chandrakant Thombre vs Bhalchandra Bhaskar Mhatre

Dharmagupta Tukaram Tambe vs Tukaram Govind Tambe

Kirtan Deepak Shah vs Deepak Maneklal Shah (Deceased)

Shyam Murlidhar Moolchandani vs State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Balaso Rajaram Salunkhe vs Aaba alias Aba Bandu Salunkhe (Deceased)