SUBODH NAVRATAN MATHURversusSUCHETA KAMLESH MADHEKAR AND ANOTHER

                                                                    20-AO-894-2026.DOC



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 894 OF 2026
                                 WITH
                  INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6858 OF 2026

Subodh Navratan Mathur and others                             ...Appellant(s)

         Versus

Sucheta Kamlesh Madhekar and another              ...Respondent(s)
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Amogh Singh a/w Mr. Nachiket Kulkarni i/b Mr. Priyank Chudasama,
Advocates for the Appellants.
Adv. K.T. Kukreja a/w Mr. Suraj Dube, Advocates for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Abhishek Mookherjee i/b Mr. Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, Advocate for
Respondent No. 2.
_________________________________________________________________

                     CORAM:                AARTI SATHE, J.

                     DATE:                 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026

P.C.

1.       This Appeal From Order takes an exception to the order dated 21 st July,

2026 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”) passed in Notice of Motion

No. 2250 of 2026 in Short Cause Suit No. 1425 of 2026 by the Bombay City

Civil Court, Dindoshi, Boriwali Division (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial

Court”) rejecting the prayer for ad-interim reliefs primarily on the ground that the

Respondent No. 1 had given an undertaking that she will not defame and post

comments which are defamatory in character either against the Appellants or the

Advocates of the Appellants. The aforesaid impugned order is an order in respect

of a prayer for ad-interim order, which was sought by the Appellants before the


                                  Page 1 of 4
Tiwari
                                                                     20-AO-894-2026.DOC



Trial Court.

2.       Learned counsel on behalf of the Appellants has submitted that the Trial

Court though has recorded an undertaking given by Respondent No. 1 that she

will not communicate or publish anything which is defamatory in character, the

said undertaking was only in respect of the Advocate representing the Appellants,

however, her conduct of posting defamatory comments continues in so far as the

Appellants are concerned. He has also sought to point out by way of a table at Page

No. 73 of the present Appeal from Order, the defamatory content which

Respondent No. 1 has posted from time to time from 04 th April 2025 to 05th June

2026 primarily on Facebook which is owned by Respondent No. 2 i.e. Meta

Platforms Incorporation. He has submitted that the aforesaid comments are

causing grave harm to the reputation of the Appellants and this conduct of the

Respondent No. 1 ought to be stopped/not allowed.

3.       Per contra, learned counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 1 has vehemently

submitted that there is no defamation that has been perpetrated in the facts of the

present case, in as much as it is his contention that all that has been sought to be

posted by the Respondent No. 1 is something which is truthful and correct in

nature. He has also submitted that, in fact, after the passing of the impugned order,

Respondent No. 1 has not posted anything on any social media platform including

Facebook or circulated anything on the public domain which is defamatory in

character against the Appellants. He further submits that considering this Appeal

from Order is only against an ad-interim relief which was rejected by the Trial

Court, and considering that the Notice of Motion is kept for hearing on 27 th



                                   Page 2 of 4
Tiwari
                                                                       20-AO-894-2026.DOC



October 2026, the aforesaid Appeal From Order is not maintainable.

4.       I have heard learned counsel on behalf of the parties. I have also perused the

proceedings and the impugned order. On a perusal of the proceedings and

especially the table which the Appellants have reproduced at Page Nos. 73 to 79 of

the Appeal from Order, it is evident that the Respondent No. 1 has been posting

various chats/allegations against the Appellants pending the adjudication of the

Notice of Motion and the Suit. This to the mind of this Court is a conduct which

cannot be countenanced or encouraged by this Court, particularly when the

dispute is pending before the Trial Court for adjudication. However, considering

that the Notice of Motion is pending adjudication before the Trial Court, without

delving into the merits of the matter or without forming a prima facie view, this

Court directs the Trial Court to decide the aforesaid Notice of Motion as

expeditiously as possible preferably on the date on which the Notice of Motion has

been fixed for hearing.

5.       It is also made clear that no defamatory statements or allegations will be

published by Respondent No. 1 against the Appellants or their Advocate(s) on any

social media platform including Facebook or circulated to any members of the

society pending the adjudication of the aforesaid Notice of Motion. Learned

counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 1 has, on instructions, given an undertaking

to that effect, that his client will not continue doing such acts or do such acts which

are defamatory in nature against the Appellants or their Advocate(s) till the

adjudication of the aforesaid Notice of Motion.

6.       This Court, therefore, directs the Trial Court to hear the Notice of Motion



                                    Page 3 of 4
Tiwari
                                                                         20-AO-894-2026.DOC



on the next date of hearing. It is also directed that the parties would not seek any

adjournment on the said date. All the contentions of the parties are expressly kept

open.

7.       Appeal form Order is, therefore, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Needless

to clarify that this Court has not expressed any opinion or come to any prima facie

view in respect of dispute or the nature of allegations that have been made by

Respondent No. 1 on social media or on any other public platforms against the

Appellants or their Advocate(s), however, it is made clear that such conduct would

not be continued by the Respondent No. 1 against the Appellants till disposal of

the Notice of Motion.

8.       Interim Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.




                                                    (AARTI SATHE, J.)




                                     Page 4 of 4
Tiwari