Bombay High Court
WP/4573/2025 of SAJID ISMAIL FURNITUREWALA Vs G.G.L.B. ESTATES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THR. PARTNER AND ORS on 14 October 2026
Priya Soparkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4573 OF 2025 Sajid Ismail Furniturewala …Petitioner Versus G. G. L. B. Estates, a Partnership Firm and ors. …Respondents Mr. Rohit Chavan i/by Mr. Vishal Kale, for the
Priya Soparkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4573 OF 2025
Sajid Ismail Furniturewala
…Petitioner
Versus
G. G. L. B. Estates, a Partnership Firm and ors.
…Respondents
Mr. Rohit Chavan i/by Mr. Vishal Kale, for the Petitioner.
CORAM:
SUMAN SHYAM &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
DATED:
14th OCTOBER, 2026.
PC:-
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. It appears from the projections made in the Writ Petition that the Petitioner as Plaintiff has instituted Commercial Suit No. 41 of 2023 in the Court of District Judge (Commercial Court) at Pune. The Defendants in the Suit have filed application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC praying for rejection of the plaint. It is the case of the Petitioner that merely on account of pendency of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the learned District Judge is not proceeding with the suit nor is the said application being taken up for disposal, thus causing undue delay in disposal of the Suit. Contending that his client is seeking recovery of a sum of about Rs.7 crores from the Defendant, the learned counsel submits that the Commercial Suit is required to be tried as expeditiously as possible, which has not been done without any valid reason. In support of his above arguments, the Petitioner has produced copies of the roznama in Commercial Suit No.0000041 of 2023. We have perused the same.
2. It appears that the mediation process in the Commercial Suit has not yet been concluded. The facts brought to the notice of the Court also prima facie indicates that the suit has not progressed much over the last three years or so.
3. Be that as it may, taking note of the limited nature of grievance of the Writ Petitioner, we dispose of the Writ Petition, by granting liberty to the Petitioner to seek expeditious disposal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. If such a prayer is made before the learned District Judge, the same be considered and an attempt be made to dispose of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by a reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, but not more than 90 (ninety) days from the date on which this order is brought to the notice of the learned Commercial Court.
4. Writ Petition stands disposed of. (GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.) {