Harnarayan Ramchandra Sharma Since Decd Thorugh Lrs. vs Sharda Devi Since Dec Thr Lrs — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Harnarayan Ramchandra Sharma Since Decd Thorugh Lrs. vs Sharda Devi Since Dec Thr Lrs — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim Application No. 1694 of 2026 allowed in terms of prayer clause (b); delay condoned; writ petition restored against respondent nos. 1a to 1f; petition directed to be decided finally at admission stage with notice returnable on 8th April 2026; learned counsel appearing waived notice for respondent nos. 1(a) to 1(d); office to issue notice to respondent nos. 1e and 1f; petitioners to serve the remaining respondents by private notice and file affidavit of service, ensuring copies are supplied and court notice issued by taking humdast.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay should be condoned and the writ petition restored against respondent nos. 1e and 1f, who had not been served despite the caveat filed on behalf of all respondents.

Court's answer

On perusal of the papers, the court found that the advocate who appeared for the respondents had given his appearance on 9th October 2017 only for respondent nos. 1a to 1d, and hence notice to respondent nos. 1e and 1f was properly issued.

Ratio / Principle

In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated in the application, the delay was condoned, the Interim Application was allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), and the writ petition was restored against respondent nos. 1a to 1f.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Gauri Godse, J.), order dated 4th March 2026, in Writ Petition No. 4543 of 2017 with Interim Application No. 1694 of 2026 — Restoration. The writ petition had stood dismissed against respondent nos. 1e and 1f in view of a conditional order passed by the learned Registrar. Allowing the petitioners' restoration application, the court held that although a caveat was filed on behalf of all the respondents, the advocate for the caveator had appeared only on behalf of respondent nos. 1a to 1d, his appearance having been given on 9th October 2017 solely for respondent nos. 1a to 1d; notice to respondent nos. 1e and 1f was therefore properly issued. The delay was condoned and the application was allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), with the writ petition restored against respondent nos. 1a to 1f. The petition was directed to be decided finally at admission stage; notice was made returnable on 8th April 2026; learned counsel appearing waived notice for respondent nos. 1(a) to 1(d); the office was to issue notice to respondent nos. 1e and 1f, with private service by the petitioners, affidavit of service, supply of copies and court notice by taking humdast. No statute or precedent was cited in the order.

8-wp-4543-2017-ia-1694-2026.doc

varsha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4543 OF 2017

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1694 OF 2026

Harnarayan Ramchandra Sharma … Petitioners/Applicants (Deceased) through Lrs

vs.

Sharda Devi(Deceased) through Lrs … Respondents

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA VIJAY VIJAY RAJGURU RAJGURU Date: 2026.03.05 18:01:59 +0530

Mr. A.S. Pal, Mr. Gobinda C. Mohanty i/b. M/s. Mohanty and Associates for the Petitioners/Applicants.

Mr. Deep Padachh a/w. Mr. Deepraj Shetye i/b. Mr. Rajiv Hingu for Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(d).

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATED : 4^th MARCH 2026

ORDER:

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1694 OF 2026

This application is for restoration of the writ petition against

respondent nos. 1e and 1f. In view of the conditional order passed

by the learned Registrar, the writ petition stood dismissed against respondent nos. 1e and 1f.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since there

Page no. 1 of 3

8-wp-4543-2017-ia-1694-2026.doc

was a caveat filed on behalf of all the respondents, he had served the advocate who had filed the caveat. He however submits that the advocate for the caveator had appeared only on behalf of respondent nos. 1a to 1d. Hence, notice was issued to respondent nos. 1e and 1f.

I have perused the papers of the petition. It appears that the advocate who appeared for the respondents had given his appearance on 9^th October 2017 only for respondent nos. 1a to 1d. Hence, this court issued notice to respondent nos. 1e and 1f. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned and the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). The writ petition is restored against respondent nos. 1a to 1f.

WRIT PETITION NO. 4543 OF 2017

Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that the caveat was filed on behalf of all the respondents. However, he submits that he has no instructions from respondent nos. 1e and 1f. This petition needs to be decided finally at admission stage. Hence, issue notice for final disposal of the petition at admission stage. Notice is made returnable on 8^th April 2026.

Learned counsel who appears today waives notice on behalf

Page no. 2 of 3

8-wp-4543-2017-ia-1694-2026.doc

of respondent nos. 1a to 1d.

Office shall therefore issue notice to respondent nos. 1e and 1f.

In addition to the court notice, learned advocate for the petitioners to serve the remaining respondents, by private notice and file affidavit of service before the next date.

Learned advocate for the petitioners shall ensure that the copies are supplied and court notice is issued by taking humdast.

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

Page no. 3 of 3