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
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XXII Rule 9(2)
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
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.