Halimabai Ibrahim Abdul Latif vs Sabir Ibrahim Lokhandwala — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Halimabai Ibrahim Abdul Latif vs Sabir Ibrahim Lokhandwala — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Chamber Order granted as prayed, subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/- as cost to 'The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai'; upon such payment, the captioned suit against defendant no. 1 is restored to file, with liberty to amend defendant no. 1's address in the Cause-Title by an appropriate proceeding and to serve defendant no. 1 with Writ of Summons within two weeks of payment, failing which the suit against defendant no. 1 will stand dismissed for non-compliance of O.S.Rule 87.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Chamber Order filed by the applicant seeking setting aside of the Order dated 11.08.2025 (dismissing the suit against defendant no. 1 for non-compliance of O.S.Rule 87) should be granted, restoring the suit against defendant no. 1.

Court's answer

Considering the grounds raised in the affidavit, the applicant should get one opportunity to pursue the captioned suit against defendant no. 1; the Chamber Order is accordingly considered favourably.

Ratio / Principle

It would be just and proper to impose certain costs on the applicant so that she remains diligent in pursuing the captioned suit.

Key takeaways

In the interest of justice, the present Chamber Order is granted as prayed, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,500/- to 'The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai'.ratio¶9
Upon payment of the cost, the captioned suit against defendant no. 1 is to be restored to file, and the applicant is permitted to take appropriate steps to amend the address of defendant no. 1 in the Cause-Title by filing an appropriate proceeding before the Hon'ble Court.ratio¶10
The applicant must serve defendant no. 1 with a Writ of Summons within two weeks from the date of payment of cost, failing which the suit against defendant no. 1 will stand dismissed for non-compliance of O.S.Rule 87.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chamber Order CHOL/1/2026 in S/31/2025, decided 08.01.2026 by Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master. The applicant sought setting aside of the Order dated 11.08.2025 dismissing the captioned suit against defendant no. 1 for non-compliance of O.S.Rule 87. Relying on the affidavit grounds — that defendant no. 1 was deliberately avoiding service despite an alternate address obtained, that nearly 4 to 5 service attempts had been made, and that the applicant, a senior citizen in poor health, could not earlier take steps to amend the address — the Court held the applicant entitled to one opportunity to pursue the suit against defendant no. 1. The Chamber Order was granted subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/- as cost to 'The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai'; on payment, the suit against defendant no. 1 stands restored to file, the applicant may amend defendant no. 1's address in the Cause-Title by appropriate proceeding, and must serve defendant no. 1 with Writ of Summons within two weeks of payment, failing which the suit against defendant no. 1 will stand dismissed for non-compliance of O.S.Rule 87.

Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 08^th January, 2026

FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :

Ms. Simran Wagle i/b. Uma Wagle, Advocate for the applicant.

38 CHOL/1/2026 ) Ms. Simran Wagle i/b. Uma Wagle, Advocate in ) for the applicant. S/31/2025 ) ) Mr. Pankaj Uttaradhi i/b. Sabeena Mahadik, ) Advocate for defendant no. 2. ) ) P.C.: The present Chamber Order is filed by the ) applicant for setting aside Order dated ) 11.08.2025, dismissing suit against defendant ) no. 1 for non-compliance of O.S.Rule 87. ) ) Heard ld. Advocate for the applicant. Perused ) Affidavit in Support, contents of which are ) self-explanatory. It is contended that ) defendant no. 1 is deliberately avoiding ) service. The applicant got alternate address of ) defendant no. 1, however, he mischievously ) avoiding service. The applicant had almost ) made 4 to 5 attempts to serve defendant no. 1. ) The applicant has made sincere efforts to serve ) defendant no. 1. It is further contended that ) the applicant is senior citizen, very ill, ) therefore, she could not take steps for ) amendment of the address of the defendant ) no. 1. Ld. Advocate for the applicant submits ) that she will take appropriate steps to serve ) defendant no. 1 and prays for restoration of ) suit against defendant no. 1. ) ) Ld. Advocate for defendant no. 2 submits for ) passing suitable order. ) ) Considering grounds raised in Affidavit, I am ) of the view that the applicant should get one ) opportunity to pursue with captioned Suit ) against defendant no. 1. Hence, I consider ) present Chamber Order favourably. However, ) it would be just and proper to impose certain ) cost on the applicant, so that, the applicant

Considering grounds raised in Affidavit, I am of the view that the applicant should get one opportunity to pursue with captioned Suit against defendant no. 1. Hence, I consider present Chamber Order favourably. However, it would be just and proper to impose certain cost on the applicant, so that, the applicant would be diligent in pursuing captioned Suit.

2 Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 08^th January, 2026

contd…. ) CHOL/1/2026 ) in ) S/31/2025 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Date : 08.01.2026

Hence, in the interest of justice, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,500/- to ‘The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai’ – Bank of India, Mumbai (Main) Branch, Account No. 000120110001337, IFSC CODE : BKID0000001, the present Chamber Order is granted as prayed and signed separately.

Upon payment of cost, captioned Suit against defendant no. 1 be restored to file and the applicant is permitted to take appropriate steps to amend address of defendant no. 1 in Cause-Title by filing appropriate proceeding before the Hon’ble Court and to serve defendant no. 1 with Writ of Summons within two weeks from the date of payment of cost, failing suit against defendant no. 1 will be dismissed for non-compliance of O.S.Rule 87.

Prothonotary and Senior Master

Digitally signed by RAJEEV RAJEEVVIJAY VIJAYACHARYA ACHARYA Date: 2026.01.09 11:09:31 +0530