Bombay High Court
WP/4325/2026 of PRALHAD ANANDRAO PATIL Vs HINDURAO NIVRUTTI SHINDE AND ORS. on 6 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4325 OF 2026 Pralhad Anandrao Patil ...Petitioner Versus Hindurao Nivrutti Shinde And Ors. ...Respondents ….. Adv. Nikhil Pawar (through V.C.) a /w Adv. Manasi Patil, Advocate
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
34-WP-4325-2026 (C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4325 OF 2026 Pralhad Anandrao Patil ...Petitioner Versus Hindurao Nivrutti Shinde And Ors. ...Respondents ….. Adv. Nikhil Pawar (through V.C.) a/w Adv. Manasi Patil, Advocate for Petitioner. Adv. Umesh Pawar a/w Adv. Sayali Mane, Advocate for Respondent No.1(A). …..
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 06th OCTOBER, 2026.
P.C. : Heard.
2. The respondent No. 1A is the only contesting party in this matter. Though couple of respondents are unserved, still matter can be taken up for final disposal.
3. The counsel appearing for both sides are unanimous that the present case is covered by judgment dated 20.08.2026 rendered by this Court in the matter of Sou. Geeta Viraj Bhagwag and others Versus Gurav Murlidhar Bade in Writ Petition No. 1554 of 2026.
4. The application Exhibit - 44 was presented seeking permission to ZIP
34-WP-4325-2026 (C).doc file counter claim, which is allowed by the impugned order. The procedural code does not contemplate any permission to be sought for filing counter claim. There is substance in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. Neither the application Exhibit - 44 was tenable, nor the order passed thereon is sustainable.
5. Considering the legal position, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has graciously conceded the position.
6. However, this Court cannot overlook that the remedy for the respondent No. 1A to seek relief cannot be foreclosed. It would be open for her to file the proceedings as is permissible in law.
7. The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause ‘a’ and the respondent No.1A shall have liberty to file the proceedings as is permissible in law.
8. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] ZIP