Rajesh Laxmichand Bheda vs Ketan Vallabhaji Veera and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rajesh Laxmichand Bheda vs Ketan Vallabhaji Veera and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief decided at this interlocutory stage. In Interim Application No. 6978 of 2025 the Sheriff's office was directed to explain within two weeks why the service report was not forwarded, the Office was to forward a copy of the order to the Sheriff, and the application was listed on 6th January 2026. In Interim Application No. 3301 of 2022 time was granted to defendant no. 9 to file an additional affidavit of the Advocate on record, and the application was stood over to 6th January 2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the written statement by defendant no. 3 (Interim Application No. 6978 of 2025) should be condoned, turning on the date of service of the writ of summons (2nd May 2023 per the plaintiff versus 9th May 2023 per defendant no. 3) and the absence of any service affidavit or Sheriff's service report. +1 more

Court's answer

On the record there is neither any service affidavit filed by the plaintiff nor any service report submitted from the office of the Sheriff.

Ratio / Principle

Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 448 of Chapter XXVIII of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, if the postal acknowledgments and the service affidavit are not collected by the plaintiff's advocate from the office of the Sheriff, it is the obligation of the Sheriff's office to directly supply the service report to the court.

Key takeaways

The office of the Sheriff is directed to submit an explanation, to be filed within two weeks, as to why the service report was not forwarded upon service to defendant no. 3; the Office is to forward a copy of the order to the Sheriff's office; Interim Application No. 6978 of 2025 listed on 6th January 2026.ratio¶34
Learned counsel for defendant no. 9 is granted time to file an additional affidavit of the Advocate on record supporting the contention that the delay-condonation application was lodged through the e-filing portal on 1st July 2022; the affidavit is to be filed before the next date with an advance copy served on the plaintiff's advocate.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Gauri Godse, J.), order dated 16th December 2025 in Commercial Suit No. 27 of 2022. (i) Interim Application No. 6978 of 2025 by defendant no. 3 for condonation of delay in filing the written statement: the plaintiff asserted service of the writ of summons through the Sheriff's office by post with the postal packet received on 2nd May 2023 (acknowledgment and tracking report annexed), while defendant no. 3 relied on paragraphs 3 to 5 of its rejoinder dated 31st October 2025 to contend service on 9th May 2023. The Court found no service affidavit by the plaintiff and no service report from the Sheriff's office on record, and invoking sub-rule (3) of Rule 448 of Chapter XXVIII of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 held that where the plaintiff's advocate does not collect the postal acknowledgments and service affidavit from the Sheriff's office, it is the Sheriff's office's obligation to supply the service report directly to the court. The Sheriff's office was directed to explain within two weeks why the service report was not forwarded; the Office was to forward a copy of the order; the application was listed for 6th January 2026. (ii) Interim Application No. 3301 of 2022 (Entire Estate Private Limited v. Ketan Vallabhji Veera): counsel for defendant no. 9 obtained time to file an additional affidavit of the Advocate on record supporting the lodging of the delay-condonation application through the e-filing portal on 1st July 2022, and was required to state the particulars of permission taken for physical filing; stand over to 6th January 2026.

29-COMS-27-2022.docx

rrpillai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 27 OF 2022 WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 922 OF 2022 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1400 OF 2022

Ketan Vallabji Veera and 6 Others … Plaintiffs/Applicants

Vs.

Municipal Corporation of Greater … Defendants Mumbai and 16 others

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3301 OF 2022 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3144 OF 2025

IN

COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 27 OF 2022

Entire Estate Private Limited … Applicant Vs.

Ketan Vallabhji Veera … Defendant

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6978 OF 2025 IN

COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 27 OF 2022

Rajesh Laxmichand Bheda … Applicant Vs. Ketan Vallabhji Veera … Defendant and Others

Mr. Nigel Quraishy a/w. Mr. Dushyant Krishnan, Ms. Shruti Dubey i/b. Mr. Garfield Clarence Mendonca for the Plaintiff.

Mr. Sunil Khandagale i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi for Defendant No. 1.

Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay for Defendant Nos. 8, 10, 11 and 14.

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date: 2025.12.18 14:27:50 +0530

1/4

29-COMS-27-2022.docx

Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w. Ms. Janhvee Joshi, Mr. Maulik Vora i/b. Mr. Pramod Kumar & Co. for Defendant Nos. 4 to 7.

Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w. Mr. Adil Parshurampuriya, Mr. Kartikeya Awasthi i/b. Purnanand & Co. for Defendant No. 9. Ms. Pooja Yadav i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi for Defendant No. 1 -BMC.

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 16^th DECEMBER 2025

ORDER :

Interim Application No. 6978 of 2025

This application is by defendant no. 3 seeking delay condonation in filing written statement. Plaintiff has filed affidavit in reply stating that the writ of summons was served through the Sheriff’s office by post and the postal packet was received by defendant no. 3 on 2^nd May 2023. The plaintiff has annexed copy of the postal acknowledgment and tracking report of the complaint for verifying the status.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has tendered affidavit

in reply dated 23^rd June 2025 and learned counsel for defendant no. 3 has tendered affidavit in rejoinder dated 31^st October 2025. Learned counsel for defendant no. 3 relies upon paragraphs 3 to 5 to support defendant no. 3’s contention that writ of summons was served on 9^th May 2023

2/4

29-COMS-27-2022.docx

by post. There is neither any service affidavit filed by the plaintiff nor there is any service report submitted from the office of the Sheriff.

The sub-rule(3) of Rule 448 of Chapter XXVIII of The Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 provides that after effecting the service by the office of Sheriff, the Advocate shall filed affidavit of service within two weeks otherwise the office of Sheriff shall file the service report of the Bailiff directly to the court thereafter. This rule clearly indicates that if the postal acknowledgments and the service affidavit is not collected by the Advocate for the plaintiff from the office of Sheriff, it is obligation on the office of Sheriff to directly supply the service report to the court. In the present case there is no such report filed by the Sheriff’s office. Office of the Sheriff shall therefore submit an explanation as to why service report was not forwarded upon service to defendant no.3. Necessary explanation shall be filed within two weeks.

Office shall forward copy of this order to the office of Sheriff.

List the application on 6^th January 2026.

3/4

29-COMS-27-2022.docx

Interim Application No. 3301 of 2022

Learned counsel for defendant no. 9 seeks time to file

an additional affidavit of the Advocate on record to support his submissions that the application for condonation of delay in filing written statement was lodged through e-filing portal on 1^st July 2022. Necessary affidavit to be filed before the next date with an advance copy to be served upon the learned Advocate for the plaintiff.

Defendant no. 9 shall also state in the additional affidavit the particulars regarding the permission taken for filing application physically to support defendant no. 9’s submissions that since e-filing was compulsory on 1^st July 2022, the application was lodged through e-filing portal.

Stand over to 6^th January 2026.

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

4/4