Bombay High Court

SHRI. VASANT GANESH PHADKE AND ORS.versusM/S VAISHNAVI DEVELOPERS THR ITS VAISHALI SHIVAJIRAO JONDHALE AND ANR.

Decided: 20 February 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: MILIND N JADHAV

Holding

The appellate court disposed of the appeal from order, finding no merit in maintaining the stay and directing prompt disposal of the regular civil appeal.

Summary

The trial court dismissed a suit filed by a partnership firm because it failed to produce a partnership certificate and disclose the names of its partners, violating Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932, and invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The plaintiff appealed, and the appellate court stayed the dismissal, a stay later challenged on the ground that Supreme Court precedent (IEEE Mumbai Section Welfare Association v. Global IEEE Institute for Engineers) precludes staying an appeal when the plaint is rejected. The appellant further relied on the Supreme Court decision in Mohammadhanif Mohammadibrahim Patel v. Pallaviben Patel, emphasizing the appellate court's discretion to re‑examine facts and law but only on a prima facie basis. The appellate court found the appeal from order to be of no substantive merit, ordered the regular civil appeal to be disposed of within four weeks, and consequently disposed of both the appeal from order and the pending interim application.

Issues considered

When can a stay order be granted against a dismissal of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC?
Does Supreme Court precedent preclude staying an appeal when the plaint itself has been rejected?
Whether the appellate court may re‑examine both facts and law in an appeal from order under Order VII Rule 11.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11
Indian Partnership Act, 1932 — s. Section 69(2)

Subjects

partnership firm
partnership certificate
Order VII Rule 11
appeal from order
stay of proceedings
Supreme Court precedent
Civil Procedure

Judgment

907.AO.178.2026.doc

Ajay

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 178 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 945 OF 2026
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 178 OF 2026

Vasant Ganesh Phadke and Ors. .. Appellants
Versus
M/s. Vaishnavai Developers Respondent
.. (Orig. Plaintiff)

....................
 Mr. Vivek B. Rane, Advocate for Appellants.
 Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Vivek Salunke and Ms.
Payal Vardhan, Advocates for Respondent.
......…...........

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 20, 2026.

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Rane, learned Advocate for Appellants and Mr.

Damle, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent.

2. On 18.02.2026, the following order was passed on

mentioning the present Appeal From Order:-

“1. Not on Board. Mentioned by way of filing praecipe dated
18.02.2026. Perused the praecipe.
2. Heard Mr. Rane, learned Advocate for Appellants and Mr.
Tiwari, learned Advocate for Respondent.
3. Short point of law arises in the present Appeal from
Order. The Suit has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(for short ‘CPC’) on the legal ground that despite Plaintiff – Firm
claiming to be a registered partnership firm it has not produced
the partnership certificate neither disclosed the names of the

1 of 4
907.AO.178.2026.doc

partners which is a prime and mandatory requirement under the
provisions of Section 69 (2) of the Partnership Act, 1932.
4. Being aggrieved Plaintiff has filed Regular Civil Appeal
before learned District Judge and in that proceeding by virtue of
the impugned order dated 23.04.2025, the learned Judge has
stayed the order and proceedings. Such an order of stay when
the Suit has been dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC
is directly in the teeth of the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of IEEE Mumbai Section Welfare Association Vs. Global
IEEE Institute for Engineers. 1
5. The Supreme Court holds that when the Plaint itself
stands rejected it cannot be said that the Appeal filed against
such an order can be a continuation of the suit proceedings.
6. Mr. Tiwari, learned Advocate enters appearance on behalf
of original Plaintiff. He would submit that he is holding for
concerned Advocate on record – Mr. V. V. Salunke. Mr. Salunke
is directed to remain present on the next adjourned date failing
which the Appeal from Order will have to be allowed by this
Court.
7. Stand over to 20th February 2026. To be placed under the
caption ‘First on Board’.
8. Praecipe is disposed.”

3. Today, the matter was kept ‘First on Board’ for hearing, Mr.

Damle, learned Senior Advocate appears for Appellant, Plaintiff before

the Appellate Court. He would submit that the observations made in

paragraph No.3 of the aforesaid order have been duly complied with

by Plaintiff before the Appellate Court albeit before the order under

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was passed by

the Appellate Court.

4. He would also refer to and rely upon the decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of Mohammadhanif Mohammadibrahim

Patel and Ors. Vs. Pallaviben Rajendra Kumar Patel and Ors. passed in
1 Civil Appeal No.(s).7235/2025 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s).14208 of 2025) decided
on 27.05.2025

2 of 4
907.AO.178.2026.doc

Special Leave Petition © No.27549 of 2025 reported in 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 2526 to answer the question raised by the Court in

paragraph No.4 of the previous order. He would submit that the first

Appellate Court can undoubtedly re-examine both the question of facts

and law and can grant appropriate relief being discretionary in nature

under the power of the Appellate Court, but however the same must be

exercised judicially based on the well-settled principles of a prima facie

case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience. He would submit

that by virtue of the impugned order, the reference is made to another

proceedings between the same parties in respect of same subject

matter.

5. Be that as it may, no purpose will be served in keeping the

present Appeal From Order pending as it will be merely of academic

interest. Rather it would be appropriate if the learned Appellate Court

is directed to dispose of Regular Civil Appeal No.14 of 2025 as

expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of four

weeks from today so as to put an end to the lis between the parties.

6. Both the parties shall appear before the learned Appellate

Court on 23rd February 2026 (Monday) at 11:00 a.m. alongwith a

server copy of this order and the learned Appellate Court shall list the

matter accordingly as per its convenience and diary for hearing.

3 of 4
907.AO.178.2026.doc

7. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open before

the Appellate Court.

8. This Court has not given any imprimatur on the merits of the

case.

9. In view of the above directions, Appeal From Order No.178

of 2026 is disposed.

10. In view of the disposal of Appeal From Order, pending

Interim Application No.945 of 2026 is accordingly disposed.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.02.20
19:13:56 +0530

4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…