Bombay High Court
Kumar Krishna D. Pathak vs Cuffe Castle Co-Operative Housing ... on 13 October, 2025
10-WP-10667-2017 C.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10667 OF 2017
Kumar Krishna D. Pathak ...Petitioner
Versus
Cuffe Castle Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ...Respondent
And Ors.
****
Mr. Kumar Krishna D. Pathak, Petitioner-in-person present.
SNEHA Mr. Sumanth Anchan, Ms. Raveena i/b Kanga and Co. for Respondent
NITIN Nos. 1 to 7, 9 to 11.
CHAVAN
Digitally signed
****
by SNEHA
NITIN CHAVAN
Date: 2025.10.14
11:09:24 +0530 CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 13th OCTOBER, 2025
P.C. :
1. After hearing Mr. Pathak, the Petitioner-in-person for some time, it is seen that the main prayer in the petition is challenging the impugned orders dated 19.01.2017, 16.09.2015 and 01.12.2005 of the Co-operative Appellate Court and Co-operative Court. The Petitioner insists that prayer clause (f) in the petition, seeking direction to the Co- operative Court to keep and maintain record of correct roznama and give proper chance to the Petitioner during hearing and record cross- examination properly, is also a prayer being seriously pressed.
2. It is seen that prayer clause (d) is also a final prayer seeking to quash and set aside the same impugned orders.
3. It is noted that the Petitioner has various grievances, which apparently fall beyond the purview of present writ petition.
Sneha Chavan 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2025 21:19:36 :::10-WP-10667-2017 C.doc
4. After hearing the matter for some time, when the Court was willing to consider the legality of the impugned orders, restricting the case as to merits of the impugned orders, the Petitioner in-person requested permission to file written submissions/arguments.
5. The Petitioner in-person is clearly informed by the Court that if he wants to file written submissions/arguments, then the petitioner cannot again argue orally all over again, because it will only be an exercise in repetition. He submits that he wishes and chooses to file written submissions/arguments.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-society and all other Respondents (except Respondent No.8) submits that if the written submissions/arguments are served by the Petitioner, the response will be filed in the form of affidavit-in-reply/submissions on behalf of the Respondents.
7. The Petitioner requested that the Co-operative Court has indicated that the dispute as filed by the Petitioner will be dismissed, if it is not proceeded with on next date and therefore, the proceedings may be stayed.
8. The petition is pending since 2017 and record shows that no interim relief or ad-interim relief has been granted in favour of the Petitioner. It is therefore not possible to grant any interim/ad-interim relief at this stage.
9. Accordingly, the Petitioner is permitted to file written submissions/ arguments on or before 17.11.2025 with its copy served Sneha Chavan 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2025 21:19:36 ::: 10-WP-10667-2017 C.doc upon the learned Counsel for the Respondents.
10. The Respondents are at liberty to file its affidavit-in-reply/response to the submissions on or before 01.12.2025 with its copy served on Petitioner.
11. Rejoinder submissions/arguments, if any to be filed on or before 08.12.2025.
12. Stand over to 10.12.2025 for further directions.
13. It is noted that the Petitioner has agreed for decision of the petition on the basis of his written submissions.
14. Learned Counsel for the Respondents states that he has instructions that a joint request for adjournment will be made before the Co-operative Court seeking appropriate next date.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Sneha Chavan 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2025 21:19:36 :::