Sapna Suresh Sharma and Anr. v. Vipul Pannalal Sharma

Bombay HC19 Jan 2026LPETN/12/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Clause XII Letters Patent leave; leave petition; partition of estate of deceased; substantial part of cause of action within Bombay High Court jurisdiction; four immovable properties Sadri Rajasthan; jurisdiction to entertain try and dispose of Suit; administration and partition suit analogy; Dipika Hitendra Shah v. Jitendra Jayantilal Shah (LP(L) 11286 of 2024); OOCJ Bombay; Abhay Ahuja J.; leave granted in terms of prayer clause (a); petition allowed and disposed on 19-01-2026.

What did the court decide?

Leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent granted in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the Petition, permitting the Petitioners/Original Plaintiffs to sue the Respondents/Original Defendants before this Court; Petition allowed and disposed. ¶¶23

Sapna Suresh Sharma and Anr. vs Vipul Pannalal Sharma — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether, although the substantial part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court but part of the cause of action (four immovable properties situate in Sadri, Rajasthan) would arise outside it, leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent should be granted so that this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the proposed Suit for partition of the estate of the deceased.

¶¶14

Court's answer

Leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent is granted to the Petitioners/Original Plaintiffs to sue the Respondents/Original Defendants before this Court, in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the Petition, the Court being satisfied for the reasons contained in paragraph 7.g of the Petition and paragraph 93 of the Plaint and the submissions of learned Counsel that part of the cause of action arises outside its jurisdiction.

¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (Abhay Ahuja, J.), Leave Petition No. 12 of 2024 in Suit (L) No. 25202 of 2024, decided 19 January 2026: The Petitioners sought leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to file a Suit for partition of the estate of the deceased. All properties of the deceased, movable and immovable, are located within the jurisdiction of this Court except four immovable properties situate in Sadri, Rajasthan, so that although the substantial part of the cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction, part of it would arise outside. Relying on paragraph 7.g of the Petition, paragraph 93 of the Plaint and counsel's submissions (including reliance on Dipika Hitendra Shah and Another v. Jitendra Jayantilal Shah, Leave Petition (L) No. 11286 of 2024, decided 19th April 2024, where Clause XII leave was granted in an administration Suit for administration and partition with properties both within jurisdiction and in Gujarat), the Court granted leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent in terms of prayer Clause (a), enabling it to entertain, try and dispose of the proposed Suit. Petition allowed and disposed.

¶1

LPETN 12-24 in SL 25202-24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

LEAVE PETITION NO. 12 OF 2024 IN SUIT (L) NO. 25202 OF 2024

¶4

Sapna Suresh Sharma And Anr. ...Petitioner V/s. Vipul Pannalal Sharma & Ors. ...Respondents

¶5

Ms. Milli Murkudkar with Mr. Aditya Tawde and i/b Solicis Lex for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Rushabh Parekh with Mr. Munaf Virjee i/b AMR Law for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 19^th JANUARY, 2026

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

This Leave Petition seeks leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent.

¶10

When the matter is called out, Ms. Murkudkar, learned Counsel appears for the Petitioner and submits that the Suit proposed to be filed seeks partition of the estate of the deceased. That all the estate of the deceased all the properties, movable and immovable, are located within the jurisdiction of this Court, however, four of the immovable properties are situate in Sadri, Rajasthan. That although the substantial part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, however, in view of the above part of cause of action would arise

¶11

Nikita Gadgil

¶12

1/3

¶13

LPETN 12-24 in SL 25202-24.doc

¶14

outside the jurisdiction of this Court and with leave granted by this court under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the Suit.

¶15

Ms. Murkudkar draws this Court’s attention to paragraph 6 of the Leave Petition and paragraphs 7.g and 93 of the Plaint in the proposed Suit in support of this contentions.

¶16

Ms. Murkudkar relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dipika Hitendra Shah and Another v. Jitendra Jayantilal Shah¹ , where Clause XII leave was granted in an administration Suit seeking administration and partition, where some of the properties were located within the jurisdiction of this Court and some in Gujarat, outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶17

Having heard the learned Counsel and having considered his submissions and also having perused paragraph 7.g of the Petition and paragraph 93 of the Plaint, this Court is of the view that, for reasons as contained in the said paragraphs and as submitted by the learned Counsel, leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent be granted and is hereby granted in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the Petition, which reads thus:

¶18

1 Leave Petition (L) No. 11286 of 2024 decided on 19^th April, 2024

¶19

Nikita Gadgil

¶20

2/3

¶21

LPETN 12-24 in SL 25202-24.doc

¶22

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an Order granting leave under Clause XII of the Bombay High Court (Letters Patent) to the Petitioners / Orig. Plaintiffs to sue the Respondents/ Orig. Defendants before this Hon’ble Court. ”

¶23

The Petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed as above.

¶24

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶25

Digitally
signed by
NIKITA
NIKITA YOGESH
YOGESH GADGIL
GADGIL Date:
2026.01.19
19:53:31
+0530

¶26

Nikita Gadgil

¶27

3/3

Sapna Suresh Sharma and Anr. v. Vipul Pannalal Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sapna Suresh Sharma and Anr. v. Vipul Pannalal Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tata Capital Limited Formerly Known as Tata Captical Financial Services Ltd. vs Pranav Shirke

Plr Hc Rbr Jv vs the Union of India

Axis Bank (Formerly Known as Uti Bank Ltd.), vs Ritesh Yashwant Sawale

Kushalraj Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Madanlal Pukhraj Jain

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Sachin Bhauso Hake

Auxilo Finserve Pvt. Ltd. vs Khusbu Sandeep Panchal