Rexon Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. vs Oshiwara Mhada Gaondevi Complex Co. Op Housing Association Ltd. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rexon Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. vs Oshiwara Mhada Gaondevi Complex Co. Op Housing Association Ltd. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Chamber Order granted as prayed: upon payment of Rs. 2,500/- cost to 'The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai' (Bank of India, Mumbai Main Branch, A/c No. 000120110001337, IFSC BKID0000001), Execution Application EXAL/1929/2025 to be restored to file, with office objections to be removed and registration/numbering obtained via compliance praecipe within two weeks of payment, failing which the Application stands rejected under O.S.Rule 986.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Chamber Order seeking restoration of the Execution Application (EXAL/1929/2025), rejected on 17.07.2025 under O.S.Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections, should be granted.

Court's answer

The grounds in the Affidavit remained uncontested for want of resistance on the part of the respondents.

Ratio / Principle

In the applicant's favour, the applicant should get one opportunity to pursue with the captioned Application; the present Chamber Order was considered favourably.

Key takeaways

It was just and proper to impose a cost on the applicant so that the applicant would be diligent in pursuing the captioned Application.ratio¶7
The cost imposed is Rs. 2,500/-, payable to 'The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai' - Bank of India, Mumbai (Main) Branch, Account No. 000120110001337, IFSC CODE BKID0000001.ratio¶9
Subject to payment of the cost, the present Chamber Order is granted as prayed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chamber Order (37 CHOL/526/2025) filed in Execution Application EXAL/1929/2025, dated 08.01.2026, before the Prothonotary & Senior Master: the applicant's execution application had been rejected on 17.07.2025 under O.S. Rule 986 for non-compliance with office objections, and the applicant sought restoration, pleading that its advocate was unaware of the rejection order. With the grounds uncontested (none of the seven respondents appearing; service on respondents 1 and 5 'Unclaimed'), the court granted the Chamber Order subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/- as cost to 'The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai' (Bank of India, Mumbai Main Branch, A/c No. 000120110001337, IFSC BKID0000001); on payment the Execution Application stands restored to file, and office objections must be removed and registration/numbering obtained by compliance praecipe within two weeks of payment, failing which the application will again be rejected under O.S. Rule 986.

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

FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :

37 CHOL/526/2025 in

EXAL/1929/2025

) Ms. Siddhi Patil i/b. Mahajan Sahil, Advocate ) for the applicant. )

) P.C.: The present Chamber Order is e-filed by the ) applicant for setting aside Order dated ) 17.07.2025, rejecting captioned Execution ) Application under O.S.Rule 986 for non) compliance of office objections. ) ) Ld. Advocate for the applicant made a ) statement that Affidavit of Service dated ) 06.01.2026, filed on 07.01.2026, shows that ) respondent nos. 2 to 4, 6 and 7 were served, ) however, service with respect to respondent ) nos. 1 and 5 is returned as ‘Unclaimed’. 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 ) for the applicant was not aware about order ) passed in the captioned Application. ) Therefore, office objections could not be ) removed within given time. It is therefore, ) prayed that captioned Application may be ) restored to file. ) ) Grounds mentioned in Affidavit, remained ) uncontested for want of resistance on the part ) of respondents. I am of the view that the ) applicant should get one opportunity to pursue ) with captioned Application. 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 ) Application. Hence, in the interest of justice, ) subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,500/- to ) ‘The High Court Employees Medical Welfare

Grounds mentioned in Affidavit, remained uncontested for want of resistance on the part of respondents. I am of the view that the applicant should get one opportunity to pursue with captioned Application. 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 Application. Hence, in the interest of justice, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,500/- to ‘The High Court Employees Medical Welfare

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

contd…. ) Fund at Mumbai’ – Bank of India, Mumbai CHOL/526/2025 ) (Main) Branch, Account No. in ) 000120110001337, IFSC CODE : EXAL/1929/2025 ) BKID0000001, the present Chamber Order is ) granted as prayed. ) ) Upon payment of cost, captioned Execution ) Application be restored to file and the ) applicant to remove office objections of ) Application and get the same registered ) and/or numbered by filing/uploading ) compliance praecipe within two weeks from ) the date of payment of cost, failing Application ) to stand rejected for non-compliance of office ) objections under O.S.Rule 986.

contd….

Date : 08.01.2026

Prothonotary and Senior Master

Digitally signed by RAJEEV RAJEEVVIJAY VIJAYACHARYA ACHARYA Date: 2026.01.09 11:09:44 +0530