Disposed¶27

Kishore Tulshiram Mantri v. Dilip Janak Mantri and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2026WP/3332/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court writ petition disposed of against administrative-side transfer of Final Decree No.7/2019 (instituted 2019) by the Principal District Judge, Nashik; Section 24 transfer purportedly without notice to opponents; propriety of procedure left debatable; transferee Judge no longer presides, de novo hearing otherwise; twin cities Nashik and Nashik Road; expeditious disposal requested.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the impugned transfer order; the petition was disposed of with a request to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik to hear and decide Final Decree No.7/2019 as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law. ¶27

Kishore Tulshiram Mantri vs Dilip Janak Mantri and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be entertained against the order dated 19th March, 2025 of the Principal District Judge, Nashik transferring Final Decree No.7/2019 from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik Road to the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The Court declined to interfere with the order of transfer, having regard to the age of the parties, the direction for expeditious hearing of the proceeding, and the fact that Nashik and Nashik Road are twin cities; though the propriety of the procedure may be debated, it did not warrant interference.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The learned Judge of the transferee Court no longer presides over the Court at Nashik, with the result that the final decree proceeding would be required to be heard de novo.

¶21

Key takeaways

Observation (point left open): if the powers under Section 24 were to be exercised on the application of a party to the proceeding, the proper course would have been to issue notice to the opponents and thereafter decide the prayer for transfer; the propriety of the procedure was described as debatable and was not decided.obiter¶19
The Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik, seized with Final Decree No.7/2019, was requested to hear and decide the Final Decree proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer of Final Decree No.7/2019 — order dated 19th March, 2025 of the Principal District Judge, Nashik moving the proceeding from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik Road to the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik — challenge by writ petition — order purportedly passed on the administrative side though it adverted to submissions of Advocate Smt. K. T. Mantri; the Court observed that if Section 24 powers were exercised on a party's application, notice to the opponents would have been the proper course, but held that the propriety of the procedure, though debatable, did not warrant interference — final decree proceeding instituted in 2019; earlier order dated 1st July, 2024 in WP/2526/2023 required the Executing Court to proceed without delay; ad-interim stay of the transfer order granted on 28th July, 2025 — the Judge of the transferee Court no longer presides at Nashik, so the matter would otherwise be heard de novo — Nashik and Nashik Road are twin cities and the parties are advanced in age — HELD: interference declined; petition disposed with a request to the seized Court to decide the Final Decree proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law.

¶1

903-WP3332-2026.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3332 OF 2026

¶6

SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI

¶7

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.03.12 15:02:05 +0530

¶8

Kishore Tulshiram Mantri ...Petitioner Versus Dilip Janak Mantri and Ors …Respondents

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

Mr. Satchit Bhogle i/b. Mr. Vishal Tambat, for the Petitioner. Smt. Seema Sarnaik, Senior Advocate, i/b. Mr. Anuj Tiwari, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 10.

¶11

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 11^th MARCH, 2026

¶12

Oral Order:-

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶14

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 19^th

¶15

March, 2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nashik, whereby the Final Decree No.7/2019 came to be transferred from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik Road to the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik, for disposal in accordance with law.

¶16

Though the order is purported to have been passed by the learned Principal District Judge on the administrative side, yet, from the perusal of the order, it appears that the learned Principal District Judge adverted to the submissions canvassed by Advocate Smt. K. T. Mantri. If the powers under Section 24

¶17

1/3

¶18

903-WP3332-2026.DOC

¶19

were to be exercised on the application of a party to the proceeding, the proper course would have been to issue notice to the opponents and, thereafter, decide the prayer for transfer of the proceedings. Thus, by an order dated 28^th July, 2025, this Court had granted an ad-interim relief and stayed the execution and operation of the impugned order.

¶20

Though the propriety of the procedure may be debated yet the fact remains that the final decree proceeding was instituted in the year 2019. By order dated 1^st July, 2024 in WP/2526/2023, this Court has directed the Executing Court to proceed with the execution proceedings in accordance with law without any further delay.

¶21

The Court is informed that the learned Judge to whose Court the final decree proceeding came to be transferred by the impugned order, no longer presides over the Court at Nashik. Resultantly, the final decree proceeding would be required to be heard de novo.

¶22

In these circumstances and having regard to the age of the parties and the direction for expeditious hearing of the proceeding and the fact that the Nashik and Nashik Road are twin cities, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order

¶23

2/3

¶24

903-WP3332-2026.DOC

¶25

of transfer, though the propriety of the procedure may be debated.

¶26

The Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik, seized with Final Decree No.7/2019, is thus requested to hear and decide the Final Decree proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law.

¶27

The petition stands disposed.

¶28

3/3

Kishore Tulshiram Mantri v. Dilip Janak Mantri and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Tulshiram Mantri v. Dilip Janak Mantri and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dnyanoba Dasharath Pingale (Since Thr His Legal Heirs) and Ors. vs Pandurang Dashrath Pingle and Ors.

Daruwalawadi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. vs Sita Wd/O Pukhraj Chunilal Bafna and Ors.

Sabira Salim Khan and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra

Rajiv Gulabchand Pandey vs Mrs. Mary George and Another

Rahul Viresh Mehta vs State of Maharashtra

Mr. Mehernosh Karkaria vs Urban Horse Property Developers Pvt.Ltd. Originally Known as- Tanna Pune