Bombay High Court
HEMAVANDA B. NAMDARIANversusDESIGNATED OFFICER, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (BUILDING AND FACTORY) AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The High Court allowed the interim application, granting a three‑week extension to file the affidavits and staying the dismissal, with no further extensions.
Summary
The applicant filed an interim application seeking an extension of time to file affidavits in lieu of examination‑in‑chief, after missing the deadline set by the High Court on 18 April 2026. The trial court had scheduled the matter for dismissal on 30 July 2026 for non‑compliance, but the applicant argued that his recent appointment and the voluminous record prevented timely filing. The High Court noted that, although interim applications are generally not permitted in disposed matters, the peculiar facts warranted a limited grace period. The court granted a three‑week extension to file the affidavits and stayed any dismissal pending compliance, while refusing any further extensions. The trial court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law and to aim for an expeditious disposal.
Issues considered
- Can an interim application be entertained in a matter where dismissal proceedings have been initiated?
- Whether the High Court may grant a further extension of time for filing affidavits in lieu of examination‑in‑chief despite the applicant’s failure to meet the original deadline?
- Whether the dismissal order can be stayed pending the outcome of the interim application?
Subjects
- extension of time
- interim application
- affidavit in lieu of examination‑in‑chief
- civil procedure
- stay of dismissal
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
30-IA-6205-26 IN AO (1).DOC
JYOTI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAJESH CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MANE
Digitally signed by
JYOTI RAJESH MANE
Date: 2026.08.20
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6205 OF 2026
11:10:27 +0530
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 197 OF 2021
Hemavanda B. Namdarian … Applicant
In the matter between:
Hemavanda B. Namdarian ...Appellant
Versus
Designated Officer, Executive
Engineer (Building And
Factory) And Another ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Satish R. Mishra, a/w. Ms. Simran Shirvoikar, for Applicant.
Mr. Dharmesh Vyas (Through V.C.)a/w. Ms. Smita Tondwalkar, for
Respondent/BMC.
_______
CORAM: AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE: 17 AUGUST 2026
P.C.
1. This interim application has been filed praying for the following
reliefs:-
a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to extend the time stipulated under clause
(i) of the operative order passed in Appeal From Order No. 197 of 2021 for filing
the Affidavits) in lieu of Examination-in-Chief before the learned City Civil
Court, Mumbai, by a further period of 4 weeks, or for such further period as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
b. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to clarify that, upon such extension, the
Applicant shall be entitled to file the Affidavits) in lieu of Examination-in-Chief
before the learned City Civil Court, Mumbai, and that the learned Trial Court
may proceed with the Suit in accordance with law.
c. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Interim Application, this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the dismissal or any coercive action in L.C. Suit
Page 1 of 4
Mane
30-IA-6205-26 IN AO (1).DOC
No. 156 of 2021 on the ground of non-filing of the Affidavit(s) in lieu of
Examination-in-Chief.
d. For such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. By an order dated 18th April 2026 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, the Applicant/Original Plaintiff was directed to file the Affidavit in lieu
of examination-in-chief of all its witnesses as expeditiously as possible and, in any
event, not later than 7th May 2026 before the Trial Court. The Trial Court was
further directed to hear and dispose of the Suit at the earliest, and preferably before
15th June 2027. It was also directed that none of the parties shall seek unnecessary
adjournments before the Trial Court, and that all parties shall extend full co-
operation to ensure that the trial proceeds within the stipulated timeline.
3. Learned counsel for the Applicant/Original Plaintiff, Mr. Satish R. Mishra,
has brought to my attention an order dated 16th July 2026 passed by the Trial
Court, wherein it has been categorically recorded that the direction issued by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 18th April 2026 to file the Affidavit in lieu of
examination-in-chief of all the witnesses was not complied with within the
stipulated period ending on 7th May 2026. It is further recorded that, even on the
said date, none appeared on behalf of the Applicant/Original Plaintiff before the
Trial Court. The Trial Court, therefore, directed that the matter be placed on 30th
July 2026 under the caption “For Dismissal”.
4. On 30th July 2026, appearance was entered on behalf of the
Applicant/Original Plaintiff before the Trial Court, and it was submitted that the
present Interim Application had been filed before this Court and was to be taken
Page 2 of 4
Mane
30-IA-6205-26 IN AO (1).DOC
up for circulation on 13th August 2026. In view of the pendency of the present
Interim Application, the Trial Court thought it appropriate not to pass any adverse
orders in the Suit. The orders dated 16th July 2026 and 30th July 2026 passed b
the Trial Court are taken on record.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant/Original Plaintiff
submitted that, after the passing of the order dated 18th April 2026, by this Court
he was engaged in the matter and, being newly appointed, was required to peruse
and familiarise himself with the voluminous records and proceedings. It was
submitted that, in view thereof, the Applicant could not comply with the direction
to file the Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief within the stipulated time, i.e.,
on or before 7th May 2026.
6. This Court is aware of the position in law that an Interim Application
cannot ordinarily be filed in a disposed of matter, in view of the judgment in the
case of State of UP Vs. Shri Brahm Datt Sharma 1. However, having regard to the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the explanation furnished
by the Applicant/Original Plaintiff in the Interim Application, this Court is of the
view that, as a last opportunity, a reasonable extension of time ought to be granted
to the Applicant/Original Plaintiff to comply with the directions issued by this
Court on 18th April 2026.
7. No further extension of time shall be granted. In view thereof, the Interim
Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The time granted to the
Applicant to file the Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief before the learned
1 AIR 1987 SC 943
Page 3 of 4
Mane
30-IA-6205-26 IN AO (1).DOC
City Civil Court is extended by a further period of three weeks from today. The
trial shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
8. Considering the aforesaid extension, the timeline fixed by this Court by
order dated 18th April 2026 for disposal of the suit also be reasonably extended
with an endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.
9. The Interim Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be
no order as to costs.
10. This order shall not be construed as a precedent in any other pending matter
and has been passed having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Mane
Checking your session…