Bombay High Court
WP/12947/2026 of August Land Developers Private Limited Vs Ganesh Ramchandra Shendkar on 16 October 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12947 OF 2026 August Land Developers Private Limited ..Petitioner Versus Ganesh Ramchandra Shendkar and Anr …Respondents Mr. Omkar M Sapre, for the Petitioner. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 16th OCTOBER 2026
3-WP-1294-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12947 OF 2026
August Land Developers Private Limited
..Petitioner
Versus
Ganesh Ramchandra Shendkar and Anr
…Respondents
Mr. Omkar M Sapre, for the Petitioner.
CORAM:
N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE :
16th OCTOBER 2026
P.C.:
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.
1. Heard Mr. Omkar M Sapre, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. The impugned order reveals that the Petitioner-Defendant No. 17 had merely prayed for the permission to deposit the costs of Rs.6000/- imposed on the Petitioner by an order dated 25th July 2018 as a condition precedent for filing the Written Statement. The Petitioner did not pay the costs. Hence, the trial Court was constrained to pass an order that the suit would proceed without written statement of Defendant No. 17, on 3rd November 2018.
3. Yet, in the year, 2024, the Petitioner simply prayed for permission to deposit the costs. The trial Court has rejected the Application on the ground that such an application for seeking permission to pay costs ARS
3-WP-1294-2026.DOC simplicitor was of no avail as on 3rd November 2018, the Court had already passed ‘no WS order’.
4. In these circumstances, the Petition stands disposed with liberty to the Petitioner to again approach the trial Court seeking recall of the order dated 3rd November 2018, alongwith permission to deposit the costs of Rs.6000/-.
5. The Court is informed that there are about 150 Defendants and there has not been any effective progress in the trial of the suit.
6. In these circumstances, the trial Court is requested to consider the composite prayer afresh and, in the event the trial Court considers it appropriate to allow the application, the trial Court would be at liberty to impose appropriate further costs.
7. Petition disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] ARS