Kalpesh Rajendra Jain vs Prabhavati Ramniklal Shah Decd Thru ... on 3 September, 2025

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Kalpesh Rajendra Jain vs Prabhavati Ramniklal Shah Decd Thru ... on 3 September, 2025

Bench: Milind N. Jadhav

2025:BHC-AS:36918
IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc

Ajay

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 28833 OF 2025
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 26665 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6140 OF 2016

Kalpesh Rajendra Jain Applicant / Orig.
.. Petitioner No.2
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Gaurishankar Govardhandas Todi
(Since Deceased) Through Legal Heirs
Promod Gaurishankar Todi and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Prabhavati Ramniklal Shah
(Since Deceased) Through Legal Heirs
Pratibha Shailesh Shah and Ors. .. Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6140 OF 2016

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6141 OF 2016

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6169 OF 2016

1 of 28

::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 :::
IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc

Gaurishankar Govardhandas Todi
(Since Deceased) Through Legal Heirs
Promod Gaurishankar Todi and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Prabhavati Ramniklal Shah
(Since Deceased) Through Pratibha Shailesh
Shah and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
 Mr. Nilesh C. Ojha, Advocate i/by Mr. Vijay Kurle, Mr. Abhishek
Mishra, Mr. Vikas Pawar, Mr. Jayendra Manchekar, Ms. Priyal
Gupta, Ms. Sonal Manchekar, Mr. Rahul Yadav, Mr. Devkrishna
Bhambri, Mr. Shivam Gupta and Mr. Bhagwan Kasture, Advocates
for Applicant.
 Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Aditya Shiralkar and Mr. Mani
Thevar, Advocates i/by M/s. Ganesh & Co. for Respondent Nos.1(a)
to 1(c).
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                    DATE        : SEPTEMBER 03, 2025.
P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Ojha, learned Advocate for Applicant in Interim Application (ST) No.28833 of 2025 and Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(c) at length.

2. Application is filed for Recall of order dated 13.08.2025 passed by this Court dismissing Interim Application (St.) No.26665 of 2025. Along with this order, Recall is also sought of interlocutory order dated 21.07.2025 passed by this Court in the principal Writ Petitions. These Writ Petitions were filed in 2016. Interim order was granted on 10.04.2024 by this Court. Respondents challenged the Interim order before Supreme Court. Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Respondents was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.09.2024 recording 2 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc that it would not prejudice rights of Respondents to take appropriate steps in the pending Writ Petitions before this Court. In March 2025, Respondents filed praecipe before my predecessor Court (Coram:

Sandeep V. Marne, J), which held the roster assignment for hearing Civil Writ Petitions. Court at that time, adhering to the request made by Respondents listed the Writ Petitions on 02.05.2025. On 02.05.2025, Court (Coram: Sandeep V. Marne, J.) passed the following order:-

"1) List the petitions for final hearing on 9 May 2025. Interim relief granted earlier shall continue to operate till the next date of hearing.''

3. Writ Petitions were then listed for final hearing on 09.05.2025 before same Court, on which date following order was passed:-

"1) The Petitions were specifically fixed today for final hearing in view of urgency made out by the contesting Respondents. However, when the Petitions are called out for final hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the Advocate on record, who used to represent Petitioners has returned the brief and arrangements are being made for engagement of a new advocate. It was made clear to the advocate for the Petitioners on 2 May 2025 that the Petitions would be taken up for final hearing on 9 May 2025 without entertaining a request for adjournment. In that view of the matter, change of advocate at this juncture is something, which this Court would ordinarily not approve. However, by way of indulgence and last chance, final hearing of the Petitions is deferred till 20 June 2025.

2) Interim relief granted earlier shall continue only till the next date of hearing."

3 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc

4. Writ Petitions were then posted for final hearing on 20.06.2025. Post summer vacation in June 2025 roster assignment for hearing Civil Writ Petitions was assigned to this Court. Writ Petitions were listed on board for hearing on 20.06.2025, but they did not reach hearing on that date due to paucity of time. They were adjourned in the normal course by this Court alongwith all other cases which did not reach hearing on that date.

5. On 03.07.2025 Respondents filed praecipe and through learned Senior Advocate Mr. Samdani made urgent application seeking preponement and listing of Writ Petitions in view of the exigency mentioned in the praecipe and the previous orders dated 02.05.2025 and 09.05.2025 upholding that exigency for listing. Request made by praecipe was granted by this Court and Writ Petitions were listed on 07.07.2025. On 07.07.2025, Advocate for Petitioners made a grievance that Writ Petitions were listed without their knowledge and consent and copy of praecipe was not served on them. Therefore, in order to enable Petitioners to get ready Writ Petitions were adjourned to 21.07.2025.

6. On 21.07.2025, Advocate for Petitioners did not appear. Petitioner No.2 appeared in-person alongwith his father and informed Court that their Advocate has refused to appear in this Court and informed that he had filed a written complaint dated 17.07.2025 4 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc before the Chief Justice of this Court and Chief Justice of India to initiate criminal prosecution against this Court and the previous Court on grounds of bribery and corruption. Petitioner No.2 persuaded the Court to not hear the Writ Petitions and adjourn them. This Court recorded what transpired and passed the following order giving one final opportunity to Petitioners to engage a new Advocate to argue the Petitions and adjourned the Petitions for hearing to 04.08.2025:-

"1. Heard Petitioner No.2 in-person; Mr. Samdani, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent s.1(a) to 1(c) and Mr. Bhatt, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.

2. One Mr. Rajendra Hamirmal Jain and his son Mr. Kalpesh Rajendra Jain have appeared before me when Writ Petitions are called out for hearing Kalpesh Rajendra Jain is Petitioner No.2. They both would submit that even though they are aware that Writ Petitions are listed for final hearing, they would submit that their Advocate has refused to appear in this Court for them. They would submit that they have prepared written complaint on behalf of Petitioners dated 17.07.2025 giving reasons as to why this Court should not hear the Petitions.

3. Prima facie, when the said submissions are read, the allegations made against the Court are extremely serious. In fact when the allegations are read further allegations are made to initiate criminal prosecution against not only this Court but also the previous Court which has passed orders for hearing and listing of the present Petitions in April and May - 2025.

4. Copy of the said complaint is submitted to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice as informed by Mr. Kalpesh Rajendra Jain. I direct the complaint copy which is given to me today be placed before the Registrar General of this Court for taking appropriate action against the said persons namely Mr. Rajendra Hamirmal Jain and his son Mr. Kalpesh Rajendra Jain in accordance with law.

5. Be that as it may, a request is made by both persons to adjourn the matters to enable them to engage another lawyer. Both of them would inform the Court that they shall engage a new lawyer within a period of two weeks from today. In the meanwhile, the action that would have to be taken against them shall not wait and Registrar General is directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law on the basis of the allegations contained in the letter dated 17.07.2025 or make an appropriate report to this Court.

5 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc

6. Mr. Samdani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the contesting Respondents has vehemently opposed to the adjournment to be granted to Petitioners. He would submit that conduct of those appearing on behalf of Petitioners is documented by this Court in the previous orders passed by this Court and therefore time and again repeated requests are made and they do not want the matters to be heard finally and enjoy the interim order passed by the Court earlier.

7. Today when the Advocate for Petitioners is not present and a request is made to the Court by Petitioner No.2 and his father, I am inclined to give one final opportunity to Petitioners to engage a new Advocate so that the Petitioners' side can be placed before the Court. However, the Petitioners are informed that no further adjournment shall be granted in the Writ Petitions considering the previous orders passed by this Court as the Petitions will be heard on their own merits.

8. A plea is made by the aforesaid two persons to continue to the ad-interim relief granted by this Court till then. Before continuing ad-interim relief, I would like to know who the two gentlemen before me today representing and espousing the cause of Petitioners are. Hence, I have asked the question to both of them. Both the gentlemen would inform the Court that they are successors-in-title. Mr. Samdani would immediately assist the Court and inform that Mr. Kalpesh Rajendra Jain is Petitioner No.2 who is the purchaser of the plot from the original Todi family members.

9. Be that as it may, that will be considered when the Petitions are heard finally by this Court strictly on merits. For the present the ad-interim / interim relief granted earlier shall be continued only for a period of two weeks from today.

10. Mr. Kalpesh Rajendra Jain has misbehaved with the Court by informing the Court that Petitions were mentioned behind his back by Respondents for listing. However, I find from the record that it is not so and Petitions were itself adjourned to 20.06.2025 on by order dated 09.05.2025 (by the previous Court).

11. Petitions were listed before this Court on 07.07.2025 and mentioned by Petitioners on 09.07.2025 and appropriate orders were passed.

12. Be that as it may, as a last and final opportunity the aforesaid order is passed and no further excuse for further adjournments on behalf of Petitioners shall be entertained by this Court considering that Petitions are to be heard as per the current roster of this Court.

13. Stand over to 04th August, 2025. To be listed under the caption 'First on Board'."

6 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc

7. The above order is the subject matter of Recall. On 04.08.2025, Mr. Kurle, learned Advocate appeared through video conferencing, but due to some connectivity issue, the Court requested Mr. Kurle to come physically to argue the Writ Petitions either on that day or the following day. On his request, matters were listed for hearing on 06.08.2025. On 06.08.2025, Mr. Kurle placed on record copy of Interim Application (St.) No. 26665 of 2025 filed online on 30.07.2025 by Petitioner No.2 seeking recusal of this Court from hearing the Writ Petitions and calling upon this Court to pass order of "Not before me" and requesting the Court to place the Writ Petitions before another Court. On 06.08.2025, Interim Application for recusal was heard fully and posted for passing orders on 13.08.2025. On 13.08.2025, Interim Application (St.) No.26665 of 2025 was dismissed. This order of dismissal is the second order which is the subject matter of Recall.

8. Mr. Ojha, learned Advocate for Applicant - Petitioner No.2 would make the following four submissions:-

8.1. He would submit that this Court passed Interim order dated 10.04.2024 in the Writ Petitions granting interim relief to Petitioners.

He would submit that the said order was challenged by Respondents before Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s).30172 of 2024. He would submit that SLP was dismissed by Supreme Court thus 7 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc upholding the interim order. He would submit that Respondents suppressed the Supreme Court order from this Court and sought listing of the Writ Petitions for hearing on the same grounds which were agitated in the dismissed SLP. He would submit that suppression of Supreme Court order of dismissal of SLP and moving this Court in April 2025 for seeking early listing of Writ Petitions without disclosure of Supreme Court order amounts to suppression and grave misconduct and commission of fraud by Respondents on this Court. He would submit that at the same time, keeping Petitioners in the dark and not serving on them copy of praecipe seeking early listing of Petitions either in April 2025 before the previous Court (Coram: Sandeep V. Marne, J.) or on 03.07.2025 before this Court amounts to obtaining the order of listing behind the back of Petitioners and deprives them the right to oppose and contest the praecipe. He would submit that therefore orders dated 21.07.2025 and 13.08.2025 be recalled by Court.

8.2. His second submission is that Petitioners became aware of the fact that original Respondent No.1 expired on 23.07.2023 recently whereas in April 2025 and July 2025 the Senior Advocate appearing for Respondents mentioned the Writ Petitions for early listing before this Court stating that age of Respondent No.1 was 87 years and therefore Writ Petitions be listed for early hearing and due to this exigency Writ Petitions were listed by previous Court (Coram: Sandeep 8 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc V. Marne, J.) and this Court both for early hearing. He would submit that Respondents' Advocate has played a fraud on the previous Court and this Court both by making Application in the name of deceased original Respondent No.1 in the year 2025 when she had expired on 23.07.2023. He would submit that death certificate obtained by Petitioners is appended at Exhibit - B which shows that original Respondent No.1 expired on 23.07.2023. He would submit that this is the element of fraud played by Respondents on both Courts seeking to prepone hearing of admitted Writ Petitions on the ground of age of the deceased Respondent No.1 which should be taken cognizance of by Court. He would submit that Respondents have declined to file Affidavit-in-Reply to the Recall application and hence it is deemed that they have admitted the Applicant's case. He would submit that Respondents have thus played fraud on the previous Court (Coram:

Sandeep V. Marne, J.) and on this Court by securing early listing of hearing of Writ Petitions on false grounds. He would therefore persuade Court to Recall order dated 13.08.2025 and not hear the Writ Petitions out of turn. In support of his above submission, he has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishnu Vardhan Alias Vishnu Pradhav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.1.

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1501 9 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc 8.3. The third ground advanced by Mr. Ojha is that Respondents have filed praecipes seeking early listing on two previous occasions but never served the praecipe on Petitioners. He would submit that if Petitioners were served with the praecipes in April 2025 before previous Court or in July 2025 before this Court, they would have got an opportunity to oppose the application / praecipe for early listing of hearing of Writ Petitions which right was denied to them. This he would contend is violation of principles of natural justice. In support of this submission, he would refer to and rely upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court:-

(i) Madhyaman Broadcasting Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors.2;

(ii) Union of India and Ors. Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan3;

(iii) Savitri Chandrakesh Pal Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.4; and

(iv) UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India and Anr.5.

8.4. The fourth submission advanced is that the main culprit of all the above actions are Respondents and their Advocates. He would with folded hands submit that he has the highest regard for the Judges of this Court and has no grievance against them at all. Equally his client also has no grievance against the Judges. However when it is 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 366 3 (1991) 1 SCC 588 4 MANU/MH/0334/2009: WP No.4101 of 2007 - Decided on 24.03.2009 5 (2021) 2 SCC 551 10 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc pointed out to him that serious insinuations and unsubstantiated allegations of bribery and corruption are made against Sitting Judges of this Court, he would immediately across the bar submit that those allegations were made due to serious apprehensions apprehended by Petitioner No.2 from the Respondents. He would submit across the bar not once but twice that Petitioner No.2's intention was not to make any complaint against the Judges of this Court and as an Advocate and Officer of the Court he agreed that Petitioner No.2 in his over enthusiasm due to the serious apprehensions of threat faced by him went overboard by levying serious charges against the Sitting Judges of this Court. In open Court, Mr. Ojha has twice submitted during the course of his arguments that, if required, Petitioner No.2 is ready to file Affidavit of apology before the Court for the allegations expressed against the Sitting Judges of this Court.

8.5. He has filed on record copy of SLP and a compendium of 47 citations running into 1048 pages in support of his submissions and Application, but has referred to 5 citations out of them while arguing the case.

8.6. On the basis of the above submissions, he would persuade the Court to Recall the orders dated 21.07.2025 and 13.08.2025.

9. PER CONTRA, Mr. Khandeparkar learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) when asked at the outset before 11 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc Mr. Ojha commenced his submissions has submitted that Respondents would not like to file Affidavit-in-reply to the Recall Application. He would submit that Respondents shall argue on the basis of material available on record. He would draw my attention to paragraph Nos.17.1 to 17.3 of the Recall Application and submit that the principal ground for Recall is deliberate misrepresentation and false material statement made to mislead both Courts for procuring an undue advantage in the form of out of turn listing of the Writ Petitions for hearing. He would submit that it is true that Original Respondent No.1 expired on 23.07.2023 at the age of 87-88 years. However, he would submit that her legal heirs were immediately brought on record and out of the three legal heirs, Respondent No.1(a) is herself 73 years old and a super senior citizen. He would submit that if the order passed by Supreme Court in the SLP appended at page No.82 of the Application is perused, it records the permission given to Respondents to take appropriate steps in the pending Petitions before this Court and further records that dismissal of SLP will not prejudice rights of Respondents to take appropriate steps in the Petitions in accordance with law.

9.1. He would submit that it is this right exercised by Respondents for seeking urgent listing of matters in April 2025 and July 2025 before the previous Court and this Court. He would submit that this Court recorded submission made by Senior Advocate for 12 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc Respondents previously that one of the Respondent is 87 years old as the ground of exigency. He would fairly submit that this submission was incorrect. He would clarify that if praecipe dated 03.07.2025 is seen by Court, it will be ascertained whether Respondents have made any incorrect statement or committed any alleged fraud on Court by misleading the Court on the praecipe itself. He would submit that according to his instructions and the office copy of praecipe dated 03.07.2025 given to him, no such misleading statement as alleged is made by Respondents in the praecipe about demised Respondent No.1 being 87 years old and therefore Petitions be listed for hearing. He would submit that in praecipe dated 03.07.2025 filed before this Court, a categorical statement is made that Respondent No.1(a) being a senior citizen early hearing of Petitions be granted. He would submit that previous Court considered the above exigency and listed the matter for hearing on 02.05.2025, 09.05.2025 and thereafter on 20.06.2025. He would submit that there is no suppression or alleged fraud committed by Respondents.

9.2. Next, he would draw my attention to paragraph Nos.17.4 to 17.06 to submit that there is no false statement of any material fact made in the praecipe filed before previous Court or this Court which may be perused by Court so as to consider the request of Applicant for initiating suo moto contempt and perjury proceedings. He would persuade the Court to dismiss the Application for Recall.

13 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc

10. I have heard both the learned Advocates at the bar and perused the record of the case. Submissions made by the learned Advocates have received due consideration of the Court.

11. It is seen that the present Recall Application clearly suffers from prolixity and is palpably repetitive and verbose reiterating the same grounds which are argued by Mr. Ojha and most importantly pleaded in the recusal Application namely Interim Application (St.) No.26665 of 2025, save and except the serious insinuations and charges of bribery and corruption made against the Sitting Judges of this Court. The recusal Application was filed on extremely serious grounds / allegations / charges rather unsubstantiated charges made in the Complaint dated 17.07.2025 levelled against two Sitting Judges of this Court (including this Court), one former Chief Justice of this Court, the former Advocate General of the State of Maharashtra, several Advocates and some individuals. Incidentally in the present Recall Application, those alleged charges neither find any mention nor are reflected nor even pressed or argued by Mr. Ojha. Rather atleast on two occasions in the course of making his submissions, he has across the bar told the Court that if required, Petitioner No.2 is ready and willing to file an apology Affidavit for levelling allegations against Sitting Judges of this Court. No such Affidavit is filed. Present Recall Application is limited and restricted by him on the grounds of fraud and denial of principles of natural justice which are argued by him and 14 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc alluded to hereinabove.

12. The order dated 13.08.2025 passed rejecting the recusal Application is a detailed comprehensive order giving reasons considering all allegations, submissions and aspects. I will come to the restricted grounds pressed in the Recall Application, however in my opinion no exceptional circumstances exist that justify the request made for Recall of order dated 13.08.2025 dismissing Interim Application (St.) No.26665 of 2025. Equally there is no ground made for Recall of order dated 21.07.2025, which is an interim order passed in the principal Writ Petitions by which the Petitions were merely listed for hearing. Grievance is made that by order dated 21.07.2025, this Court has altered the interim relief granted by Court at the time of admitting the Petitions by restricting the interim relief to two weeks. This reason and ground cannot be countenanced since even the previous Court (Coram: Sandeep V. Marne, J.) while passing the order for early listing dated 02.05.2025 and 09.05.2025 had also restricted the interim relief upto the next date of listing and Petitioners have accepted those orders and not challenged them. Hence there is nothing wrong in passing of order dated 21.07.2025.

13. Then there is a new ground pleaded that this Court should have referred the Petitions to the Chief Justice of this Court for allotment to another bench in view of recusal Application filed by 15 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc Applicant. Infact there was a prayer in recusal Application itself calling upon this Court to refer the Petitions to the alternate bench of this Court. However none of these reliefs are/were within the domain of this Court since the Hon'ble the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and Courts have to function as per roster assignment assigned to the Court. All grounds in the recusal Application have been answered by giving adequate reasons and stand dismissed on merits. Filing of the present Recall Application is one more misadventure by Petitioners to further protract hearing of the Writ Petitions by Court and achieve their sinister motive of prolonging hearing of Writ Petitions on grounds which are unsustainable.

14. A new ground is now pleaded for the first time in this Recall Application that original Respondent No.1 was 87 years old and she expired in 2023. This ground is pleaded for the first time though it was clearly to the knowledge of Petitioners much earlier when her legal heirs were brought of record record in the year 2023 itself on the Application of Petitioners. However when order dated 02.05.2025 and 09.05.2025 was passed by the previous Court (Coram: Sandeep V. Marne, J.), this ground was not taken, pleaded or informed. In June 2025, when matters were listed on the roster of this Court on 20.06.2025 as per order passed by the pervious Court, this ground was not complained of by Petitioners either on that date or thereafter. No Affidavit of wrong pleading by Respondents was filed by Petitioners in 16 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc this regard. On 07.07.2025 when matters were listed and heard by this Court, once again this ground was not pleaded or argued by Advocates for Petitioner. It is seen that in the written complaint dated 17.07.2025 made by Petitioner No.2 to the Chief Justice of India and Chief Justice of this Court, this ground is not taken, pleaded or argued. On 21.07.2025, when Petitions were listed before this Court for hearing, once again this ground was not pleaded or argued by Petitioners. That apart when order dated 13.08.2025 was pronounced in open Court, this ground was not taken pleaded or argued by Petitioners. It is only now in the Recall Application this ground is pleaded for the first time and is repeated and reiterated again and again as a ground of fraud by reference to 41 citations from which extracts and reproductions are made and reproduced in the Application. I have perused the entire record. There is no element of fraud on the part of Respondents pleaded on record. Incorrect submission of the Senior Advocate regarding age of one of the original Respondent as 87 years recorded on 13.08.2025 is the only reason why this ground is agitated. Mr. Khandeparkar has clarified that position in his submissions and persuaded the Court to peruse the praecipe to ascertain the correct position. Most importantly it needs to be noted that the entire Recall Application is conspicuously silent on the serious insinuations levelled by Petitioner No.2 against the Sitting Judges of this Court. It is seen that Advocate for Respondents applied to the previous Court in April 17 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc 2025 on the basis of the leave and liberty granted by the Supreme Court to Respondents (Petitioners in the SLP) in the order dated 17.09.2024. The Supreme Court order is reproduced herein below for immediate reference to dispel any notion of fraud committed by Respondents on this Court or for that matter on the previous Court.

" After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition to take appropriate steps in the pending matter before the concerned Court.

Recording the said submission, the captioned Special Leave Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. However, we make it clear that the dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the rights of the Petitioner to take appropriate steps in the pending matter(s), in accordance with law.

Pending application(a), if any, shall stand disposed of."

15. From the above, it is seen that filing praecipe / making urgent Application for early listing of Petitions by Respondents either before the previous Court (Coram: Sandeep V. Marne, J.) or even before this Court cannot be held against Respondents neither the order of dismissal of SLP can preclude Respondents from making the urgent Application for early listing. Due to fraud alleged in the Recall Application, I have perused the praecipe dated 03.07.2025 filed by Respondents before me and I think it fit to reproduce the entire praecipe to dispel any doubt in the minds of Petitioners that Respondents made a false submission for early listing in the name of original Respondent who had expired in the year 2023 and had committed fraud and misled both the Courts. The praecipe dated 18 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc 03.07.2025 is scanned and reproduced as under:-

19 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc 20 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc

16. From the above, it is crystal clear that there is no fraud played by Respondents to seek listing on the ground of demise of original Respondent No.1 who was 87 years old. Respondent No.1(a) is herself 72 years old and a senior citizen is the ground stated in the 21 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc praecipe before this Court. Equally, the same exigency was mentioned before the previous Court in April due to which the Petitions were listed on 02.05.2025, 09.05.2025 and post vacation on 20.06.2025 by the previous Court. Therefore there is no element of fraud practiced on the Court by Respondents. Writ Petitions were filed in the year 2016 and have remained pending for almost 10 years. They emanate from proceedings filed under Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act proceedings before the Statutory Authorities. Writ Petitions are yet to be heard finally and decided. Every possible opportunity is given to the Petitioners to be ready but they would insist that once Petitions are admitted and interim relief is granted, they should / can only be heard finally according to their turn. This adamant attitude of Petitioners to determine administration of justice and as to how Courts should conduct hearings cannot be allowed by the Court. Litigants cannot determine the procedure and method to be followed by the Court.

Litigants cannot hold the judiciary to ransom by threatening Judges of initiating criminal action. Litigants who try to browbeat or threaten Judges have to be dealt with firmly. My predecessor Court considered the exigency and listed the Writ Petitions for hearing on 02.05.2025, 09.05.2025 and 20.06.2025. After the change in roster, I have also given ample time to Petitioners on multiple occasions which is reflected in the orders passed by this Court.

22 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc

17. Hence, from the above, at least one thing is clear that there is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by Petitioners. Neither is the order dated 13.08.2025 passed on technicalities nor there is any procedural irregularity in passing the said order and as held hereinabove, there is no fraud practiced on either the previous Court or this Court by Respondents. Present Recall Application is nothing but a sheer abuse of the due process of law by the Petitioners into once again browbeating the Court which will not be tolerated by this Court. There is absolutely no merit in the present Interim Application seeking Recall of the twin orders in the above facts and circumstances. The Application seeking Recall is therefore dismissed.

18. Before I conclude there is one larger question which needs to be addressed in view of the additional submission addressed by Mr. Ojha which is not contained in the pleadings. This is in regard to Mr. Ojha now stating across the Bar that Petitioner No.2 has no grievances against the Sitting Judges of this Court and he holds them in high esteem and if required he can file his apology Affidavit in Court. There is no pleading to this effect in the Recall Application neither Affidavit of apology is filed as argued across the bar. The point that needs to be pressed here is what is the role of a lawyer in such circumstances who represents such a litigant who has levelled serious charges, rather unsubstantiated charges against Sitting Judges and others and subsequently makes a statement across the bar that he holds the 23 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc Judges of this Court in high esteem and if required can file apology Affidavit. If a litigant, merely on apprehension and hearsay as pleaded, levels serious and unsubstantiated insinuations and charges of bribery and corruption against Sitting Judges and then seeks to apologize for his act through his Advocate orally across the bar, then can such a litigant be spared. By alleging serious charges, the litigant infact strikes at the root of the judicial system upon which the common man reposes utmost trust and faith for redressal of his grievances. In such a case role of the Lawyer/Advocate representing the litigant who has drafted the Recusal Application and Recall Application comes to the fore. The Advocate pleading and espousing the cause of such litigant cannot act merely as a postman which has happened in the present case. The litigant may have a grievance against his opponent but he cannot vilify the Judges of the Court to settle his scores. The role of the Lawyer therefore in such situation is far more significant as he owes a duty to the Court first. He is an Officer of the Court first and is an important conduit between the litigant and the Court. He has to act as a filter and cannot act merely as a mouthpiece of the litigant especially when serious unsubstantiated charges are levelled against Sitting Judges merely on apprehensions without adducing any proof or evidence, against the former Chief Justice of this Court, against the former Advocate General of this State, against Advocates and Counsels practicing at the Bar, against a Solicitor firm, which are in the most 24 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc casual and irresponsible manner only to browbeat the Court and are subsequently attempted to be redacted by making an oral statement across the bar. Hence the Complaint dated 17.07.2025 filed by Petitioner No.2 has been referred to the Registrar General of this Court in the order dated 21.07.2025 for taking appropriate action.

19. I am of the opinion that even before filing the Recusal Application, the concerned Advocate for the Applicant ought to have been more careful and responsible as an Officer of the Court which I find lacking in the present case. Even the present Recall Application as filed and argued cannot undo and reverse what has been alleged in the complaint dated 17.07.2025. The statement made by Mr. Ojha across the bar that Petitioner No.2 is ready to file apology Affidavit in my opinion therefore lacks bonafides. In the words of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bombay High Court on its Own motion Vs. Ketan Tirodkar6 it is held that rumour mongering, loose talk, denigrating and attempts at destroying institutions like the judiciary would never be tolerated. The Law and the Constitution frowns upon it.

20. Once we as Judges of the Constitutional Courts take the oath of upholding the Constitution and the law, then, we have to ruthlessly come down on blatant violation of both the Constitution and the law. That is the duty of the Judge and none should forget that we are 6 2019 (1) MhLJ 252 25 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc bound to perform it. Let everybody know and be aware that judiciary is not helpless. That it wields enormous powers. The nature of the judicial process being what it is, it is inevitable that the view taken by a Judge, perfectly bonafide though it may be, may not accord with the expectation of a litigant, but that cannot be a ground for casting reckless imputations against the Judge or accusing him of serious unsubstantiated charges as is the present case.

21. I would also like to refer to the recent observations made by a Single Judge of the Telangana High Court in her order dated 22.08.2025 passed in Criminal Petition No.4162 of 2020. In paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 13, the learned Judge has summed up the above situation which refers to the Majesty of the Court and echos the concern of every Judge against whom serious unsubstantiated allegations are made which he is unable to defend due to his Constitutional position. I deem it fit to reproduce the above paragraphs for immediate reference which in my opinion fit in the present situation they read thus:

"11. A trend of vilifying Judges has emerged in recent times. Disgruntled lawyers and litigants often demand release, recusal and transfer of matters on the pretext of oblique motives attributed to the Judge. Such reckless allegations derail the course of justice by creating an environment of intimidation which is not conducive to the effective administration of justice. Personal attacks on Judges breach the safety-net of impartial decision-making and is antithetical to independent judges. Targetting of Judges makes for skeptical and unsure Judges.

12. The attackers also forget that while casting - and circulating - aspersions in print or on social media can be done 26 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc by the flick of a key, the concerned Judge does not have a platform to present his/her side of the story. One- sided mud- slinging, more often than not, swings right back to besmirch the attacker. The 'Majesty' of a Court is an inalienable part of the respect associated with upholding of the Rule of Law. Attacks on Judges irrevocably dent the dignity of Courts as impartial arbiters of justice and affects public trust and confidence in the judiciary. Advocates, as equal participants in the quest for justice, have a greater responsibility in ensuring that the Court is not brought to disrepute.

13. As an end-note, Judgeship is never about the power of the Chair but is always about the responsibility of disseminating justice with conscience, commitment and compassion. The common man should repose full faith and confidence on the Courts. Fortunately, notwithstanding the occasional stresses and strains, Courts continue to be the proud flag-bearers of justice. "

22. In the case of Shanti Bhushan and Anr Vs. U.O.I. and Anr 7, the Supreme Court has held that unfortunately, it is the easiest thing to make false, reckless and irresponsible allegations against Judges in regard to their honesty and integrity without producing any evidence in support thereof and in recent times the tendency has grown to make such allegations against Judges because they have decided the case in a particular manner. That the Judge against who, such allegations are made is defenseless because having regard to the peculiar nature of the office held by him he cannot enter the arena of conflict and raise or join a public controversy. That this pernicious tendency of attributing motives to Judges has to be curbed if the judicial institution is to survive as an effective instrument for maintenance of rule of law in the country. All that I would like to say is that when any attempt is made to lay imputations on the Judges of the Court, the Advocate / Lawyer 7 (2009) 1 SCC 657 27 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 ::: IAST.28833.25 with WP.6140.16+.doc of the litigants cannot be a mute spectator as he assumes a significant role as an Officer of the Court to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Court. This is what is expected of him.

23. In view of the above observations and findings, Recall Application is dismissed.





                                                    [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Ajay


                 Digitally signed
                 by RAVINDRA
       RAVINDRA MOHAN
       MOHAN    AMBERKAR
       AMBERKAR Date:
                 2025.09.03
                 11:38:53 +0530




                                                                                28 of 28


           ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025                   ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:20 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court