Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SUMANDEVI CHANDULAL TALERAversusRISHABH SUBHASH TALERA AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The High Court held that the recall of the restoration order was proper as there was no Supreme Court direction, and ordered the trial court to decide the pending applications expeditiously.

Summary

The original plaintiff died in 2017, leading the trial court to abate the suit on 3 October 2018 because no legal representatives were brought on record. The plaintiff's wife filed an application under Order XXII Rule 9(2) of the CPC to set aside the abatement, which was dismissed in 2019. After obtaining condonation of delay in 2023, the trial court mistakenly restored the suit on 21 December 2023, believing a Supreme Court decision required it. Respondents successfully moved to recall that restoration order, reinstating the abatement. The petitioner challenged the recall through a writ petition, but the High Court held that the recall was justified as no Supreme Court directive existed and directed the trial court to decide the pending applications within six months. The writ petition was consequently disposed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the trial court erred in recalling its order restoring the suit in the absence of a Supreme Court directive.
  • Whether the abatement order can be set aside after the petitioner's delay was condoned.
  • Whether the writ petition challenging the recall of the restoration order is maintainable.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • abatement
  • restoration of suit
  • condonation of delay
  • Order XXII Rule 9
  • Civil Procedure
  • writ petition
  • recall of order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:38835
                                                                 41-WP7832-2026.DOC

                                                                            Santosh

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                WRIT PETITION NO. 7832 OF 2026

              Sumandevi Chandulal Talera                             ...Petitioner
                              Versus
              Rishabh Subhash Talera and ors.                    …Respondents

              Mr. Aashit Kankariya, i/b Sheetal Mishra, for the Petitioner.
              Ms. Ketki Gadkari, for Respondent No.1.
              Mr. Jamshed Mistry, i/b Ronita Bhattacharya Bector, for
                   Respondent No.5.
              Mr. Arshad Shaikh, Senior Advocate, a/w Pranil Lahigade, i/b
                   Ronita Bhattacharya Bector, for Respondent No.6.

                                           CORAM:    N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                           DATED:    16th SEPTEMBER, 2026

              Oral Order:-

              1.    Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

              2.    The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 5 th

              February, 2026, whereby the learned Civil Judge has recalled an

              earlier order dated 21st December, 2023, whereby the suit came

              to be restored.

              3.    The Plaintiff passed away on 19 December 2017. In view of

              the death of the original plaintiff, the issue of abatement of the

              suit arose for consideration of the trail Court as admittedly the

              legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff were not brought

              on record within the stipulated period. Hence, on 3 October

              2018, the learned Civil Judge, after recording that no steps were

                                             1/4
                                                 41-WP7832-2026.DOC

taken to bring the legal representatives of the deceased – Plaintiff

on record, disposed the suit as abated.

4.   From the perusal of the said order dated 21 December

2023, it appears that, under an incorrect impression that the

Supreme Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to appeal (C) No(s).

13947 of 2015 dated 6 May 2016, has directed the restoration of

the suit, the learned Civil Judge had restored the suit.

5.   It appears, the Petitioner, who is the wife of late Plaintiff,

filed an application under Order XXII Rule 9(2) of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the abatement and dismissal

of the suit.   However, the said application also came to be

dismissed by an order dated 19 October 2019, purportedly for

non-removal of office objections. The Petitioner thus filed Civil

Misc. Application No.1210 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay

in filing the application for setting aside the said order dated 19

October 2019 and another application for restoration of the

earlier application dismissed on 19 October 2019 being Misc.

Civil Application No.1383 of 2023.

6.   By an order dated 29 September 2023, the trial Court

allowed the said application for condonation of delay. That order

was assailed before this Court in CRA(ST) No.1218 of 2024. By




                                2/4
                                                 41-WP7832-2026.DOC

an order dated 21 February 2024, the said CRA came to be

dismissed.

7.   In the meanwhile, by the aforesaid order dated 21

December 2023, the suit came to be restored by the trial Court.

Thus, the Respondent No.1 – Defendant No.1 filed an application

before the Trial Court (Exh.87) seeking recall of the said order

dated 21 December 2023, as there was no such order passed by

the Supreme Court directing the restoration of the suit. By the

impugned order, the learned Civil Judge recalled the order dated

21 December 2023, and restored the earlier order dated 3

October 2018, whereby the suit stood abated and disposed.

8.   The situation which thus obtains is that, the application

for restoration of the application filed by the Petitioner under

Order XXII Rule 9(2) of the Code, awaits adjudication, as the trial

Court has condoned the delay in taking out the said application

by an order dated 29 September 2023, which has been affirmed

by this Court.

9.   Incontrovertibly, there was no order by the Supreme Court

directing the restoration of the suit by setting aside the

abatement.       Thus, the said application being Misc. Civil

Application No.1838 of 2023 for restoration of earlier application

preferred under Order XXII Rule 9(2) of the Code, and, in the


                               3/4
                                                                                    41-WP7832-2026.DOC

                          event said application is allowed, the main application for setting

                          aside the abatement and dismissal of the suit, are required to be

                          decided by the trial Court.

                          10.         In the aforesaid backdrop, having regard to the pendency of

                          the proceedings which commenced with the institution of the

                          suit on 24 February 2012, and the peripheral issues on which

                          the parties have been litigating, this Court considers it

                          appropriate to direct the learned Civil Judge to decide the

                          pending         applications,   as   expeditiously   as     possible   and,

                          preferably, within a period of six months from the date of

                          communication of this order.

                          11.         All contentions of the parties in regard to the pending

                          applications are kept open for consideration.

                          12.         The Writ Petition stands disposed.

                                                                           [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




Signed by: S.S.Phadke                                          4/4
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/09/2026 11:02:28


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.