The High Court of Bombay has recalled the September 15, 2023 notice passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, which dismissed civil suits filed before December, 2021 in default for non-removal of office objections within eight weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla observed that the common notice could not have been issued under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980 without first listing of matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Apex Court consequently restored the dismissed suits to the High Court\u2019s records.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Bench observed that there was no power to issue such blanket directions of removal of office objections within the period stipulated in the common notices without first listing these matters and accordingly, the common notices dated September 15, 2022 were being recalled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court gad directed rejection in default of all suits filed before December, 2021 if office objections weren\u2019t removed within the stipulated period of eight weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A bunch of interim applications were filed in the dismissed suits assailing the notice, including one by Lok Everest Co-op Hsg Soc Ltd vs Jaydeep Developers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, assisted by Advocate Ashwini Patil instructed by Solicis Lex, submitted that his clients were not even aware about the rejection of their suit pursuant to the notice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Under the Rule, Advocate Chandrachud claimed the rejection was effected only when office objections have not been removed within 30 days, prior to which the matter was placed before the Prothonotary & Senior Master of the Court for directions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Terming it a \u2018blanket ban,\u2019 the lawyer said only then could the discretion be exercised by the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court to either reject the Plaint for non-removal of office objections or grant further time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Advocate Rohaan Cama appearing for petitioners in another suit, cited the case of Lawrence Fernandes vs State of Maharashtra, wherein the court held that the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court was empowered to direct dismissal of the Plaint, Memorandum of Appeal, Execution Application for non-removal of office objections, only after such matters were placed before him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stressing that the suits need to be restored, the lawyer sought time for office objections. Justice Chagla then recalled the notice and restored the dismissed suits. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The High Court directed listing of the suit on board before the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court for directions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Regarding the time to be fixed for removal of office objections, the Single-Judge Bench said it has to be considered on a case-to-case basis by the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court depending on the nature of objections to be removed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The High Court of Bombay has recalled the September 15, 2023 notice passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, which dismissed civil suits filed before December, 2021 in default for non-removal of office objections within eight weeks. The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla observed that the common notice could not have been issued under […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":108271,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[60003,246,2176],"tags":[1252,124813,89695,124812,124814],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/d2r2ijn7njrktv.cloudfront.net\/IL\/uploads\/2020\/08\/13143313\/Bombay-High-Court.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/305838"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=305838"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/305838\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/108271"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=305838"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=305838"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=305838"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}