Applicant sought restoration of a Suit rejected under O.S.Rule 986 for non-compliance with office objections. The court granted the Chamber Order subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/- to the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund, directing restoration upon compliance within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 16th January, 2026
FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :
36 CHOL/10/2026 in SL/30364/2025
Ms. Priyanka Ghosh i/b. Solicis Lex, Advocate for the applicant.
) ) )
) P.C.: The present Chamber Order is filed by the ) applicant for setting aside Order dated ) 28.11.2025, rejecting captioned Suit under ) O.S.Rule 986 for non-compliance of office ) objections. ) ) Ld. Advocate for the applicant made a ) statement that respondents were served with ) the Chamber Order and Affidavit of Service is ) filed. Despite service, none appeared for the ) respondents. ) ) Heard ld. Advocate for the applicant. Perused ) Affidavit in Support, contents of which are ) self-explanatory. It is contended that Advocate ) was not aware about Conditional Order passed ) in captioned Suit due to which office ) objections could not be removed within given ) time. Ld. Advocate submits that now she will ) pursue with captioned Suit diligently and ) prays for restoration of the same. ) ) Considering contentions raised in Affidavit, I ) am of the opinion that applicant should get ) one opportunity to pursue with captioned Suit. ) Moreover, none appeared for the respondents. ) No prejudice would cause to the respondents ) since they can contest Suit on its own merits. ) However, it would be just and proper to ) impose certain cost on the applicant so that ) the applicant would be more diligent in ) pursuing with captioned Suit. Hence, in the ) interest of justice, present Chamber Order is ) granted as prayed subject to payment of cost ) of Rs. 2,500/-, to be paid to The High Court ) Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai’ – ) Bank of India, Mumbai (Main) Branch,
Considering contentions raised in Affidavit, I am of the opinion that applicant should get one opportunity to pursue with captioned Suit. Moreover, none appeared for the respondents. No prejudice would cause to the respondents since they can contest Suit on its own merits. However, it would be just and proper to impose certain cost on the applicant so that the applicant would be more diligent in pursuing with captioned Suit. Hence, in the interest of justice, present Chamber Order is granted as prayed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,500/-, to be paid to The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai’ – Bank of India, Mumbai (Main) Branch,
2 Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 16th January, 2026
contd…. ) Account No. 000120110001337, IFSC CODE : CHOL/10/2026 ) BKID0000001. Chamber Order is signed in ) separately. SL/30364/2025 ) ) Upon payment of cost, captioned Suit be ) restored to file and the plaintiff to remove ) office objections of Suit and get the same ) registered and/or numbered by filing/ ) uploading compliance praecipe within two ) weeks from the date of payment of cost, failing ) Suit to stand rejected for non-compliance of ) office objections under O.S.Rule 986.
Date : 16.01.2026
Prothonotary and Senior Master
Digitally signed by RAJEEV RAJEEV VIJAY VIJAY ACHARYA ACHARYA Date: 2026.01.17 10:49:23 +0530
1 issue framed by the court
Should the applicant's Chamber Order seeking setting aside of the order rejecting the Suit under O.S.Rule 986 be granted?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil H. Laddhad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
