PANKH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITEDversusDARIOUS RUTTON KAWASMANECK

                                                       1/4                15-IA-2141-2026 (OS).DOC



         Digitally             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
         signed by
         MOHAMMAD
MOHAMMAD AREEB
AREEB    MOHD
                                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
MOHD     AKBAR
AKBAR    Date:
         2026.10.07
         18:24:23
         +0530
                                  INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2141 OF 2026
                                                       IN
                                       COUNTER CLAIM NO. 5 OF 2026

             Pankh Properties Private Limited                                        ...Applicant
                      Versus
             Darious Rutton Kavasmaneck                                              ...Respondent
                                                    _______
             Mr. Dhruva Gandhi a/w Ms. Jahnavi Pandey, Ms. Namrata Kondavale i/b Dhru &
             Co. for the Applicant.
             Ms. Firdaus Moosa i/b Parekh Mahadik for Respondent-Counter Claimant.
                                                    _______
                                          CORAM         :      ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
                                          DATE          :      1st OCTOBER, 2026


             P.C.


             1.       The Applicant, who is the Plaintiff in the captioned Suit and the

             Respondent in the Counter Claim filed by the Defendant, has filed the present

             Interim Application seeking condonation of a delay of 30 days in filing the

             Written Statement to the Counter Claim.


             2.       I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.


             3.       Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant,

             submits that the delay in filing of the Written Statement was only of 30 days. He

             thus submitted that the delay was neither inordinate, nor of such nature that

             condoning the same would cause any prejudice to the Respondents.




             Areeb
                                        2/4               15-IA-2141-2026 (OS).DOC



4.      Mr. Gandhi pointed out that the delay was occasioned because the

Applicants had sought inspection of the documents, vide a letter dated 12 th

January 2026. The Respondents however had failed to give such inspection to

the Applicants. He submitted that the Applicants, after initially waiting for

inspection, then proceeded to prepare the Written Statement, having realised

that inspection was not forthcoming and to avoid any further delay. He

therefore submitted that the delay was not intentional nor was it on account of

any inertia on the part of the Applicants. He reiterated that the slight delay arose

only because of the Respondents’ failure to provide inspection. In these

circumstances, Mr. Gandhi submitted that the delay ought to be condoned, and

the Applicants be permitted to file their Written Statement to the Counter Claim.


5.      Ms. Moosa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents,

opposed the Application on the ground that the Application was premised on an

entirely false basis. Learned Counsel pointed out that while condonation of delay

in the filing of the Written Statement was sought on the basis that the

Respondents had not given inspection, she submitted that the letter seeking

inspection was dated 12 th January 2026, which was well before the Counter

Claim had been filed. Ms. Moosa therefore submitted that the Applicants’

reliance on the said letter was entirely misleading and false unless the

Applicants had a premonition that the Respondents would be filing a Counter

Claim. She submitted that the Applicants having chosen to base their case on a

patent falsehood, must necessarily face the consequences for doing so.


6.      Mr. Gandhi, in response, denied that the Applicants had made any false



Areeb
                                        3/4               15-IA-2141-2026 (OS).DOC



and/or misleading statement as alleged or otherwise. He submitted that the

Respondents were deliberately misreading the letter dated 12 th January 2026. He

then invited my attention to the said letter and pointed out that the Applicants

had specifically sought “inspection of all the documents that your Clients have

and or propose to refer to and or rely upon in this matter ”. He therefore

submitted the Respondents' contention that inspection was qua the Counter

Claim or only the Counter Claim was plainly incorrect. He reiterated that no

false statement was made by the Applicants nor was the Application premised on

any false or misleading basis.


7.      Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the

rival contention, I find that the Applicant has shown sufficient cause to condone

the delay, which I must note is of 30 days. The principal objection raised by the

Respondents is that the Applicant made a false statement in relation to its request

for inspection. A plain reading of the letter dated 12 th January 2026 makes clear

that inspection was sought for “all the documents”, which the Respondents had

referred “or proposed to refer” to or rely upon “in the matter”. The Counter

Claim was filed shortly after the said letter was written, and therefore there is no

gainsaying that it would not cover the documents relied upon by the

Respondents in the Counter Claim. Crucially, the Respondents have, despite such

request, not given inspection and hence, in my view cannot be allowed to make

capital out of their own default. As already noted, the delay is neither inordinate

or of such a nature that condoning the same would prejudice the Respondent

affecting any vested right.




Areeb
                                        4/4               15-IA-2141-2026 (OS).DOC



8.      Hence, in my view the substantive interests of justice would best be served

if the delay is condoned and the Applicants are permitted to file their Written

Statement to the Counter Claim so that the Counter Claim can be adjudicated on

merits.


9.      Accordingly, the Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses

(a) and (b).




                                                  [ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]




Areeb