SHRI. DILIP MAHADU POTE AND ORS.versusSHRI. BHASKAR TUKARAM POTE

                                                  1&2&901-WP-2417-2014.docx


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                       WRIT PETITION NO. 2417 OF 2014
Swapnil
          M/s. Bhakti Developers, Through Partner,
          Shri. Shamji Bhavan Aarethiya           …     Petitioner
                 Vs.
          Vijay Gaikwad.                          …     Respondent
                                     WITH
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 3613 OF 2017
          Dilip Mahadu Pote and Ors.        …    Petitioners
                 Vs.
          Bhaskar Tukaram Pote.                   …     Respondent
                                 WITH
                   WRIT PETITION NO. 11573 OF 2019
          Jaydevkumar Bharatsinh
          Parmar.                                 …     Petitioner
                 Vs.
          Abhaysing Bhagwansinh
          Parmar Decd Through Lrs And
          Ors.                                    …     Respondents


          Mr. Drupad S. Patil for the petitioner in WP/2417/2014.
          Mr. Prathmesh T. Bhanuwanshi i/b. Mr. Sanjay P. shinde for
          the petitioner in WP/3613/2017.
          Mr. Vatsal Gosalia a/w. Mr. Chandresh Rao for the
          respondent in WP/3613/2017.
          Mr. Atharva S. Jagtap i/b. Ms. Jyoti Chavan for the petitioner
          in WP/11573/2019.
          Ms. Chitra Darekar i/b. Mr. Girish Agrawal for respondent
          nos. 1 to 5 in WP/11573/2019.

                                       1/9
                                         1&2&901-WP-2417-2014.docx


                       CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                       DATE :       6th MAY 2026

ORDER :


1.    In all these petitions, the suits have remained pending

due to the incorrect entries made in the roznama and CIS,

that, the suit is stayed by the high court. Writ Petition No.

3613 of 2017 is disposed of on 4th March 2026; however, the

learned Principal District Judge, Nashik, was directed to find

out the reason for listing the suit in the category of “stayed”

and submit a report. Even in Writ Petition 2417 of 2014, a

similar report was called for from the learned Principal

District Judge, Raigad, regarding a similar incorrect entry.

Even in Writ Petition No. 11573 of 2019, the trial court

proceedings remained pending due to an incorrect entry in

CIS. Hence, all three petitions were listed together.


WRIT PETITION NO. 2417 OF 2014:


2.    Pursuant to the order dated 10 th April 2026 passed in

Writ Petition No. 2417 of 2014, a report dated 4th May 2026

by the learned Principal District Judge, Raigad, Alibag, is

placed on record. From this report and the earlier report, it

appears that without verifying the record, the entry in the

                              2/9
                                        1&2&901-WP-2417-2014.docx


Roznama and CIS was made that the suit has been stayed

by the High Court. The report states that, based on oral

submissions, the entry was made that “Stayed by Hon’ble

High Court”. The wrong entry was made on 16 th December

2022 and continued till this court called for a report. The

concerned learned Judicial Officer never bothered to verify

whether any stay writ had been received, and, unfortunately,

the suit remained unattended for more than three years.


3.    In Writ Petition No. 2417 of 2014, the impugned order

rejected the petitioner's application for impleadment in the

suit. The writ petition has remained pending for service upon

the respondents. There are various office remarks which

show that steps have not been taken to effect service.


4.    Learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.

2417 of 2014 submits that despite intimating the petitioners,

he has not received the required information for proceeding

with the petition. He thus has no further instructions to

proceed with the petition.


5.    Hence, the Writ Petition No. 2417 of 2014 is dismissed

for non-prosecution.



                             3/9
                                        1&2&901-WP-2417-2014.docx


WRIT PETITION NO. 3613 OF 2017:


6.   In Writ Petition No. 3613 of 2017, as directed vide

Order 4th March 2026, a report dated 17 th April 2026 prepared

by the learned Principal District Judge, Nashik, is submitted.

The report states that due to a lack of verification and in the

absence of a dedicated CIS category for ‘status quo’ order,

an incorrect entry of “Stayed by Hon’ble High Court” was

made in the CIS.


7.   I have perused the second part of the petition. The stay

writ refers to the order passed by this court on 31 st March

2017 directing the parties to maintain status quo. The said

writ refers to the prayer clause which is for directing the

defendants to maintain status quo in respect of the suit

property. The order dated 27th March 2017 passed by this

court is also enclosed with the writ issued to the trial court.

The order passed by this court directs the parties to maintain

status quo.


8.   This court has never passed any order staying the

further proceedings of the suit. By no stretch of imagination

the order directing the parties to maintain status quo can be

interpreted to mean that the further proceedings of the suit is

                              4/9
                                           1&2&901-WP-2417-2014.docx


stayed. Even the writ issued to the trial court does not

indicate that the suit is stayed.


9.    It is unfortunate and shocking that in view of the order

of status quo passed by this court, the trial court has not

proceeded further with the suit since 2018. Unfortunately

even the parties and their Advocates have never bothered to

take any steps to proceed with the suit.


10.   The Writ Petition No. 3613 of 2017 is disposed of as

infructuous by Order dated 4th March 2026.


WRIT PETITION NO. 11573 OF 2019:


11.   So far as the Writ Petition No. 11573 of 2019 is

concerned, the proceedings in the trial court in this writ

petition have also remained stayed due to incorrect entries in

the CIS. In this writ petition, a notice was issued on 24 th

February 2020, and the trial court was requested to defer the

hearing of the probate proceedings for six weeks. Thereafter,

the petition has remained pending either on the ground of

adjournment as requested by the parties or due to paucity of

time. There were no further directions issued by this Court to

adjourn the proceedings in the trial court. The proceedings in


                                5/9
                                          1&2&901-WP-2417-2014.docx


this writ petition have also remained pending due to an

incorrect entry in the CIS.


12.   This petition is filed by the original applicant in the

probate proceedings to challenge the trial court’s order

rejecting his application to frame additional issues and

allowing the respondent's application to recast the issues.

The impugned order is purely an interlocutory order.


13.   Normally, the court should be slow in interfering with

such an interlocutory order. In view of Section 105 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) it will always be open

for the petitioner to challenge the impugned order in an

appeal, in the event the final decree is adverse to the

petitioner.


14.   Hence, this is not a case in which the impugned order

should be interfered with in exercise of the discretionary

jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.


15.   Subject to the aforesaid observations, and reserving

the right under Section 105 of the CPC, the Writ Petition No.

11573 of 2019 is dismissed.




                               6/9
                                          1&2&901-WP-2417-2014.docx


Common Directions In All Three Writ Petitions:


16.   It is clarified that the reports called for from the

concerned Principal District Judges should not be construed

as show-cause notices, as they are not a reflection on the

capability of the staff or the concerned judicial officers. It was

out of concern that this court had called for reports as part of

a fact-finding process. The purpose of calling for the reports

was only to ensure early disposal of the suits and to prevent

incorrect entries in the Roznama and CIS.


17.   In view of the incorrect entries made in the CIS in the

trial courts, stating that the suit is stayed by the High Court,

the proceedings unnecessarily remain pending. Hence, it is

necessary to verify the record before making any entry in the

Roznama and CIS.


18.   When an order of stay is brought to the notice of the

Trial Judge, by making oral submissions or a written

application/pursis, appropriate precautions must be taken to

ensure that the directions are correctly followed, by giving the

parties an opportunity to produce a copy of the order on

record. When possible, efforts can be made to check the

status online, as the data is now available on the official

                               7/9
                                          1&2&901-WP-2417-2014.docx


website. When interim relief is granted up to a particular

date, and it is found that it is not extended for any reason, the

concerned judicial officers are required to verify the status of

the interim relief by issuing necessary directions to the

parties before continuing the status in the Roznama and on

the CIS. The concerned Trial Judge must ensure that correct

entries are made in the Roznama and the CIS and that the

litigation does not unnecessarily remain pending in the trial

court.


19.      It is the duty of the concerned Trial Judge before whom

the suit or any original proceeding is listed, to verify the

status of any proceedings, if any, filed before the District

Court or High Court and the status of the interim relief, if any,

before making entries in the Roznama and in the CIS. The

concerned Trial Judge must ensure that the trial proceedings

do not unnecessarily remain pending only on the ground of

pendency of any proceedings in the District Court or High

Court. Hence, the Trial Judge must take all precautions to

ensure that the suit/original proceeding is listed on the

causelist at the correct stage and that accurate entries are

made in the Roznama and the CIS to ensure timely disposal



                                8/9
                                         1&2&901-WP-2417-2014.docx


of the suit/original proceedings.


20.   These directions are issued only to ensure the timely

disposal of the suit/original proceedings.


21.   A copy of this Order shall be forwarded to the learned

Registrar (Judicial-I) at the time of uploading, for taking

necessary steps to forward the copy of this order to all the

Trial Court Judges.




                                             [GAURI GODSE, J.]




                               9/9