Disposed¶33

Geeta @ Kusum Visanji Dharod @ Shah v. Paresh Visanji Dharod @ Shah and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC30 Jul 2025IA/3376/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unconditional withdrawal of suit; modification/substitution of paragraph 4 of withdrawal order dated 25-11-2021; refund of court-fees; Clause XII of the Letters Patent; Suit No. 156 of 2019; Interim Application No. 3376 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction; N. J. Jamadar, J.; decided 30 July 2025; Geeta @ Kusum Visanji Dharod @ Shah v. Paresh Visanji Dharod @ Shah and ors.

What did the court decide?

Paragraph 4 of the order dated 25 November 2021 substituted to permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit unconditionally; rest of the order left unaltered; Registry directed to process the claim for refund of court-fees on the premise that the suit stands withdrawn unconditionally. ¶33

Geeta @ Kusum Visanji Dharod @ Shah vs Paresh Visanji Dharod @ Shah and 7 Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 25 November 2021 should be modified so as to permit the plaintiff to withdraw Suit No. 156 of 2019 unconditionally, in view of the resolution of the dispute between the parties and the consequent rejection of her court-fees refund application.

¶27

Court's answer

In view of the submissions and developments in the intervening period, paragraph 4 of the order dated 25th November, 2021 stands substituted as under: 'The plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the suit unconditionally.'

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Rest of the order dated 25th November, 2021 remains unaltered.

¶31

Key takeaways

The Registry may process the claim for refund of court-fees on the premise that the suit stands withdrawn unconditionally.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Interim Application No. 3376 of 2025 in Suit No. 156 of 2019, decided by N. J. Jamadar, J. on 30 July 2025: The applicant–plaintiff, who by an order dated 25 November 2021 had been permitted to withdraw her suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action after obtaining leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent (with refund of court-fees as per Rules directed), sought modification of that order because the dispute between the parties stood resolved, no fresh suit was filed, and her refund application had consequently been rejected. The Court substituted paragraph 4 of the order dated 25 November 2021 with 'The plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the suit unconditionally.', left the rest of the order unaltered, and directed the Registry to process the claim for refund of court-fees on the premise that the suit stands withdrawn unconditionally. The application stands disposed.

¶1

3-IA3376-2025.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3376 OF 2025

¶6

¶7

SUIT NO. 156 OF 2019

¶8

Geeta @ Kusum Visanji Dharod @ Shah ...Applicant In the matter between Geeta @ Kusum Visanji Dharod @ Shah ...Plaintiff Versus

¶9

SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI

¶10

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2025.07.30 19:16:07 +0530

¶11

Paresh Visanji Dharod @ Shah and ors. …Defendants

¶12

Mr. S. J. Chaurasia, i/b A. K. Kharwar, for the Applicant – Plaintiff.

¶13

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 30^th JULY, 2025

¶14

PC:-

¶15

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.

¶16

This application is preferred seeking modification of the

¶17

order date 25^th November, 2021.

¶18

By the said order the applicant – plaintiff had sought leave

¶19

to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action after obtaining leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent.

¶20

The refund of court-fees as per Rules was also directed.

¶21

It transpired that in view of the resolution of the dispute

¶22

between the parties, the plaintiff has not filed a fresh suit on the

¶23

1/2

¶24

3-IA3376-2025.DOC

¶25

same cause of action and consequently the application of the plaintiff for refund of the court-fees came to be rejected.

¶26

The learned Counsel for the applicant – plaintiff now submits that the plaintiff is not required to file a fresh suit as the dispute between the parties has been resolved.

¶27