Bombay High Court
SHRI. PRAKASH NAGPAL OF BOMBAYversusSHRI. RATILAL G. BUSA AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court set aside the trial court’s order dismissing the Chamber Summons, made the summons absolute, and imposed costs on the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner sought to set aside a 2014 order of the City Civil Court that dismissed Chamber Summons No. 2327 of 2013, which was filed to bring the legal heirs of a deceased defendant on record in a suit that began in 1994. The defendant had died in December 2012 and the names of his legal heirs were only furnished to the court in September 2013, leading to the filing of the Chamber Summons in October 2013. The High Court examined whether the delay in filing the summons could be condoned given the extraordinary 32‑year pendency of the underlying suit. It held that the delay was insignificant and should be condoned, especially since the trial court’s refusal had contributed to further delay. Consequently, the 2014 order was set aside, the Chamber Summons was made absolute, and the petitioner was ordered to pay Rs. 25,000 costs to the respondent. The writ petition was allowed in these terms.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing a Chamber Summons to bring legal heirs on record can be condoned.
- Whether the trial court's order dismissing the Chamber Summons should be set aside.
- Whether costs may be imposed on the petitioner for the delay.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- legal heirs
- chamber summons
- civil procedure
- costs
- long pendency
- high court
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:35962
Renuka 18-WP-13348-2016.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13348 OF 2016
Shri. Prakash Nagpal Of Bombay ...Petitioner
V/s.
Shri. Ratilal G. Busa and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Ms. Eshwaree Suraj Kudalkar i/b Mr. Suraj S. Kudalkar for Petitioner.
Mr. Suresh Dhole with Ms. Anuja Dhole-Trilokekar and Ms. Pushpa
Shinde for Respondents.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 1 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) The Petition challenges order dated 7 February 2014 passed
by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dismissing Chamber
Summons 2327 of 2013. The Chamber Summons was filed for setting
aside the abatment and to bring on record legal representatives of
Defendant No. 1.
2) I have heard Ms. Kudalkar the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner and Mr. Dhole the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents and have considered the submissions canvassed by them.
Page No.1 of 3
1 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka 18-WP-13348-2016.docx
3) Defendant No. 1 passed away on 14 December 2012. On 18
January 2013, the Advocate for Defendant No. 1 informed the Court that
Defendant No. 1 had expired on 14 December 2012. However, apparently
names of Defendant No. 1 were not disclosed on 18 January 2013. On 16
July 2013 Plaintiff's Advocate informed the Court that details of legal
heirs were awaited from the Advocate for Defendant No. 1. The Advocate
for Defendant No. 1 ultimately furnished the names and addresses of
legal heirs of Defendant No. 1 on 18 September 2013. The Chamber
Summons for bringing on record legal heirs of Defendant No. 1 was filed
on 28 October 2013.
4) Considering the above position, in my view, there was
sufficient cause for condoning insignificant delay in applying for
bringing on record legal heirs of Defendant No. 1. The suit is filed in the
year 1994 and still continues to be pending before the City Civil Court for
the last 32 long years. Considering this position, some delay in applying
for bringing all legal heirs of Defendant No. 1 on record ought to have
been condoned. It is unfortunate that the Trial Court's refusal to condone
the delay and denial of opportunity to bring on record legal heirs of
Defendant No. 1 has resulted in pendency of the suit for last 12 long
years.
5) The Plaintiff also has to share the blame for delaying the
decision of his own suit. Plaintiff initially filed Appeal from Order No.
810 of 2014 challenging the order dated 7 February 2014. After realising
that the A.O. was not maintainable, the same was withdrawn on 26
October 2016 with liberty to file a Writ petition. This is how the present
Page No.2 of 3
1 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka 18-WP-13348-2016.docx
Writ petition is filed. The Writ Petition has remained pending before this
Court for the last 10 long years. In the process, decision of the Suit is
withheld. Therefore, while granting opportunity to the Plaintiff to bring
on record legal heirs of Defendant No. 1, some costs are required to be
imposed on the Petitioner/Plaintiff.
6) Accordingly, the order dated 7 February 2014 is set aside.
Chamber Summons No. 2327 of 2013 is made absolute in terms of
prayers made therein. The Petitioner shall pay to Respondent No. 1 costs
of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of three weeks.
7) Writ Petition is allowed in above terms with costs as
indicated above.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
Page No.3 of 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 1 SEPTEMBER 2026
Date: 02/09/2026 13:35:38
Checking your session…