Bombay High Court
PRAKASH VITTHAL KALE DIED THR LRS ASHALATA DIED THR RAJANIKANT AND ORSversusMAHARASHTRA PULSE MILLS JALGAON THR ITS PARTNER ASHWIN H SHAH AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is disposed of, and the petitioners are directed to avail the miscellaneous appeal before the District Court, which may entertain the appeal with discretion to condone delay.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay challenging an order, but the respondents contended that the petitioners had an alternate remedy of filing a Miscellaneous Appeal before the District Court under Order 48 Rule 1(i) of the CPC. The petitioners argued that the limitation period for such an appeal had expired because they were proceeding in good faith before the High Court. The Court held that the petitioners may still approach the District Court, which can consider the reasons for delay and decide on condonation. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioners to pursue the miscellaneous appeal in accordance with law. The decision emphasizes the principle that an appropriate alternative remedy, even if time‑barred, can be sought with the discretion of the lower court.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternate remedy of a miscellaneous appeal under Order 48 CPC is available.
- Whether the limitation period for filing the miscellaneous appeal bars the petitioners from seeking that remedy.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 48 Rule 1(i)
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Miscellaneous appeal
- Order 48 CPC
- Limitation period
- Alternate remedy
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41553
1 989-WP-10908-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
989 WRIT PETITION NO. 10908 OF 2026
Prakash Vitthal Kale Died Thr Lrs Ashalata Died Thr Rajanikant Prakash
Kale And Ors
VERSUS
Maharashtra Pulse Mills Jalgaon Thr Its Partner Ashwin H Shah And Ors
...
Mr.Girish S. Rane for the Petitioners.
Mr.Vijay Bhalerao Patil for Respondent No.1.
...
CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : 04.09.2026
PER COURT :
1. Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, after arguing
the matter for some time, submits that an objection has been raised by
learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents that the Petitioners have
an alternate remedy of filing a Miscellaneous Appeal before the District
Court under Order 48 Rule 1(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Upon considering the said provision, learned Advocate for the Petitioners
submits that the Petitioners may avail of the said remedy before the
District Court.
2. However, since the Petitioners have been prosecuting the
present Writ Petition before this Court, the period of limitation prescribed
for availing the aforesaid remedy has already expired. The Petitioners
were prosecuting the present proceedings under a bona fide impression
that the impugned order was required to be challenged before this Court.
Sunny Thote
2 989-WP-10908-2026.odt
3. In the event the Petitioners avail of the remedy of filing a
Miscellaneous Appeal before the learned District Judge, the learned
District Judge shall take into consideration the aforesaid circumstances
and the reasons for the delay caused in filing the Miscellaneous Appeal,
and consider the same in accordance with law. All the points and
contentions of the respective parties are kept open to be agitated before
the District Judge.
4. In view of the alternate remedy available to the Petitioners,
the Writ Petition stands disposed of, with liberty to the Petitioners to avail
of the said remedy in accordance with law.
[ MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ]
Sunny Thote
Checking your session…