PHOENIX TOWER CO OP HSG SOC LTD AND ANRversusPHOENIX CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND ORS

                                                                              10-WP-11832-2026.DOC




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 11832 OF 2026


                      Phoenix Tower Coop Hsg Soc Ltd and Anr                      ..Petitioners
                           Versus
                      Phoenix Construction Company and Ors                     …Respondents

                      Mr. Karan Bhide, with Aayesh Gandhi and Gaurang Samel, i/b Wadia
                            Ghandy and Co, for the Petitioners.
                      Mr. Parimal K Shroff, with D.V. Deokar and Dhruvesh Parikh, i/b
                            Parimal K Shroff & Co, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
                      Mr. Santosh Mali, for Respondent No.6-BMC.
                      Ms. Rujuta Patil, with Yohaan Shah, i/b Negandhi Shah &
                            Himayatullah, for Respondent No.7.


                                                    CORAM:         N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                    DATE :         24th SEPTEMBER 2026


                      ORAL ORDER:

                      1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

                      2.      The Petitioner-Plaintiff was constrained to institute this Petition

                      seeking to quash and set aside the orders dated 17 th July 2026 and 20th

                      July 2026, whereby the learned Judge, City Civil Court seized with Suit
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Digitally signed by
ARUN RAMCHANDRA
                      No. 102105 of 2024, has directed the parties to seek further directions
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.09.28
10:59:34 +0530

                      from the High Court as the suit has not been disposed of within the

                      time-frame indicated by the Supreme Court in its order 7 th October

                      2013.


                      ARS                                    1/3
                                                        10-WP-11832-2026.DOC

3.    The Suit was initially instituted before this Court, on its Original

Side. In the wake of the order passed at the interlocutory stage, a

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26616 of 2013, came to be filed

before the Supreme Court. By an order dated 7 th October 2013, while

dismissing the said Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court requested

the High Court to expedite the trial, and hear and dispose of the suit, as

far as possible, within a period of one year thereof.

4.    Subsequently, in view of the enhancement in the pecuniary

jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, the suit came to be transferred to the

City Civil Court.

5.    On 17th July 2026, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, passed the

order directing the parties to seek further directions from the High

Court as the learned Judge was of the view that the until further

directions are obtained from the High Court, in terms of the order

passed by the Supreme Court on 7th October 2013, the suit cannot be

proceeded with. Thus, hearing of the suit was kept in abeyance

6.    Evidently, the time-frame indicated by the Supreme Court in its

order dated 7th October 2013 had expired much before the suit came to

be transferred to the City Civil Court. It is true, the Supreme Court had

given liberty to the parties to seek further directions from the High

Court in case the suit was not disposed of within the time-frame

indicated therein by the said order. However, that does not imply that, if


ARS                                    2/3
                                                         10-WP-11832-2026.DOC

the suit is not disposed within the said period, the proceedings in the

suit shall remained in a state of suspended animation.

7.    Nonetheless, to pave the way for an expeditious disposal of the

suit, it is clarified that there is no impediment for the City Civil Court to

proceed with the suit. Having regard to the pendency of the suit and the

nature of the proceedings, the learned Judge seized with Suit No.

102105 of 2024 is requested to hear and decide the suit as

expeditiously as possible, and, preferably, within a period of one year

from the date of communication of this order.

8.    Parties shall render the necessary cooperation to the City Civil

Court in the expeditious disposal of the suit.

9.    All contention of all the parties are expressly kept open.

10.   Petition disposed.



                                              [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




ARS                                    3/3