Disposed¶39

Girish S. Pikale v. Shailesh S. Pikale

Bombay HC30 Mar 2026IA/7199/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recall and restoration of interim application dismissed for counsel's non-appearance; non-appearance held inadvertent; non-compliance with prior costs direction (Rs.1,00,000/- per Defendant, order dated 01-10-2025) not a bar to restoration; separate pending application for recall of costs directions. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Suit No.838 of 2016 (with Leave Petition No.186 of 2016; IA No.7199 of 2025 in IA No.2136 of 2021/2025), Girish S. Pikale v. Shailesh S. Pikale & 26 Ors., Coram: Arif S. Doctor, J., decided 30-03-2026. Keywords: restoration of interim application, inadvertent non-appearance of advocate, change of advocates, costs default, Bombay High Court OS.

What did the court decide?

Interim Application No.2136 of 2025 restored to the file of the Court; Interim Application No.7199 of 2025 (seeking recall) disposed of.

Girish S. Pikale vs Shailesh S. Pikale — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim Application No.2136 of 2025 restored to the file of the Court; Interim Application No.7199 of 2025 (seeking recall) disposed of.

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether Interim Application No.7199 of 2025 seeking recall of the order dated 11th November 2025 (which dismissed Interim Application No.2136 after the Applicant's Advocate failed to appear, with non-compliance of an earlier costs direction also noted) should be allowed and the dismissed Interim Application restored.

¶26

Court's answer

The failure of the Applicant's Advocate to appear on the date the Interim Application was dismissed was inadvertent, given that he was present in this Court in the previous matter.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The circumstance that the Interim Application was dismissed in the context of non-compliance with the earlier costs direction (recorded only as a submission of learned counsel) does not preclude its restoration.

¶33

Key takeaways

The substantive interest of justice required restoration; Interim Application No.2136 of 2025 is restored to the file of the Court.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Suit No.838 of 2016 — P.C. order by Arif S. Doctor, J., dated 30th March 2026. Interim Application No.7199 of 2025 sought recall of the order dated 11th November 2025 dismissing Interim Application No.2136 (No.2136 of 2025 per the body text; No.2136 of 2021 per the caption) and its consequential restoration. The Single Judge held that the non-appearance of the Applicant's Advocate was inadvertent, as he was present in this Court in the previous matter the same day. The circumstance that the dismissal followed non-compliance with an earlier costs direction (order dated 1st October 2025 directing payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to each Defendant) was noted only as a submission of counsel and held not to preclude restoration; a separate application for recall of the costs directions is pending before the Single Judge who passed that order. Interim Application No.2136 of 2025 was restored to the file of the Court and Interim Application No.7199 of 2025 was disposed of.

¶1

24-S-838-2016 (OS).DOC

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

SUIT NO. 838 OF 2016

Girish S. Pikale

...Plaintiff

Versus

Shailesh S. Pikale And 26 Ors.

¶10

...Defendants

¶11

WITH

¶12

LEAVE PETITION NO. 186 OF 2016

SUIT NO. 838 OF 2016

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7199 OF 2025

¶17

¶18

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2136 OF 2021

¶19

Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar, Sr. Adv. a/w Ms. Sneha Phene, Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni i/b Vaibhav Kulkarni, for the Plaintiff.

¶20

Mr. Manish Gala, for Defendant Nos.1 & 2.

¶21

Ms. Nilima Sanglikar, for Defendant Nos. 3 & 4.

¶22

Mr. Yogesh Mishra a/w Mr. Sanjiv Puralekar i/b PRS Legal, for Defendant Nos. 7, 12 to 14, 20 & 21.

¶23

Ms. Naveena Kumai a/w Ms. Aparnaa Rajeshwari, for Defendant Nos. 18 & 19.

¶24

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 30th MARCH, 2026

¶25

P.C.

¶26

The Interim Application seeks recall of an order dated 11 th November 2025 and the consequential restoration of Interim Application No.2136 of 2025.

¶27

Vaibhav

¶28

24-S-838-2016 (OS).DOC

¶29

2/3

¶30

Heard Mr. Khandeparkar, learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff, who points out that the Interim Application came to be dismissed on account of the fact that the Applicant's Advocate was not present on that date. He points out that this is so because there was a change of Advocates and in fact on that very same day in this Court, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Applicant had appeared in the very previous matter. He, therefore, submits that this was only on account of inadvertence that he did not appear in the matter for recall.

¶31

Mr. Gala, learned counsel for Defendant Nos.1 and 2 points out that the Interim Application was dismissed because it was brought to the Court's notice that a previous order dated 1st October 2025, by which the Applicant was directed to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to each Defendant, was not complied with.

¶32

Having heard learned counsel, I must note that clearly the failure to appear on behalf of the learned counsel was inadvertent, given that he was present in this Court in the previous matter.

¶33

Furthermore, the contention of Mr. Gala that the Interim Application was dismissed because the Court noted that costs had not been paid is indeed recorded as a submission of learned counsel. However, the same, in my view, would not preclude the restoration of the Interim Application. I am informed that learned counsel for the Applicant has taken out an appropriate Interim Application for recall of the directions to pay costs, and that the said application is pending before the learned Single Judge who has passed the order.

¶34

Depending on the fate of that application, and as it is not being pressed today, in my view, the substantive interest of justice would require that the

¶35

Vaibhav

¶36

24-S-838-2016 (OS).DOC

¶37

3/3

¶38

present Interim Application No.2136 of 2025 be restored and it is accordingly restored to the file of this Court.

¶39