Bombay High Court

BARTAKKE ELECTROFAB PVT. LTD.versusMAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (MSEB) AND ANR.

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court held that the order dated 28‑04‑2022 was erroneously based on an inadvertent mistake and should be recalled.

Summary

The applicant, Bartakke Electrofab Pvt. Ltd., sought to recall an order dated 28 April 2022 that declared the execution proceedings as disposed, claiming the statement was based on an inadvertent mistake. The mistake arose because the original Special Darkhast No. 22/2003 had been renumbered as Regular Darkhast No. 74/2012, and the execution was actually still pending. The respondent argued that the applicant’s counsel was not part of the original proceedings, raised allegations against a former lawyer, and invoked Article 137 of the Limitation Act to bar the application. The Court examined the factual matrix, found the error to be bona‑fide and without any malafide intent, and held that the limitation argument was inapplicable as the matter fell under Article 215 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court allowed the interim application to recall the erroneous order.

Issues considered

Whether the order dated 28‑04‑2022 declaring the execution proceedings disposed can be recalled on the ground of an inadvertent mistake.
Whether the limitation provisions of the Limitation Act (Article 137) bar the application for recall.
Whether the applicant’s counsel, not having appeared in the original proceeding, has locus standi to move the application.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 215
Limitation Act, 1963 — s. Article 137

Subjects

interim relief
recall of order
inadvertent mistake
limitation
execution proceedings
darkhast renumbering
constitutional article 215

Judgment

                                                              30 IA 375 OF 2026.odt

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                30 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 375 OF 2026
                                  IN
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 7036 OF 2010

                    BARTAKKE ELECTROFAB PVT. LTD.
                                   VERSUS
     MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (MSEB) AND ANR.
                                     ...
     Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Kuldeep U Nikam a/w Adv. Pratik Patil
     Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shoaib Faiyaz Shaikh i/by Mr.
                           Mohansinh U. Rajput
                                      ...
                     CORAM                : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                     DATE                 : 07.10.2026

PER COURT :

      Heard.

2.    The applicant seeks to recall order dated 28.04.2022.

3.    Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Writ Petition was
preferred challenging order passed below Exh. 43 in Special Darkhast No.
22/2003.   Rule was granted on 05.04.2011 with interim relief.            During
passage of time, Darkhast proceedings were transferred and renumbered as
Regular Darkhast No. 74/2012. The statement was made before the Court
on 28.04.2022 that the execution proceedings were disposed of and the
matter had become infructuous. Accordingly, order was passed.

4.    It is submitted that inadvertent mistake is disclosed to the petitioner.
Actually the proceedings are renumbered as Regular Darkhast No. 74/2012
and Special Darkhast No. 22/2003 was found to be disposed of, hence the
statement was made.      There are no mala fides and realizing that the
proceedings are still pending, the application is moved.

5.    Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 Mr. Rajput has

                                                                               1/2
                                                               30 IA 375 OF 2026.odt

vehemently submitted that advocate appearing for the applicant cannot
maintain the application because he was not appearing in original
proceeding. It is submitted that the allegations are made in the memo of
application against the erstwhile lawyer without any basis. The submissions
are unfounded. The applicant is not diligent, though its a company in
Corporation.    It is further submitted that the darkhast proceedings were
transferred long back and the lawyer of the applicant participated before the
Executing Court, still wrong statement was made. It is further submitted
that Article 137 of the Limitation Act would be an impediment for
entertaining the application.

6.      I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. Admittedly,
Special Darkhast No. 22/2003 was renumbered as Regular Darkhast No.
74/2012. Looking to the status as per original number it was gathered that
execution proceeding was disposed of and the statement was made on
28.04.2022. The execution is still pending. I find substance in the contention
of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mistake is due to sheer
inadvertence.

7.      Nothing is pointed out that with an oblique motive the wrong
statement was made by erstwhile lawyer and any undue advantage is taken.
The mistake is bona fide one. I find that no allegations are made by present
lawyer against the earlier lawyer. The plea on Article 137 of the Limitation
Act has no merit as the proceedings are under Article 215 of the
Constitution of India. I find that case is made out to exercise powers for
recalling the order in question.

8.      Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘A’.


                                         ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)

mkd/-



                                                                                2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…