The Bombay High Court has set aside an order dismissing a chamber summons and imposing costs of ₹25 lakh, holding that the applicant's failure to seek clubbing of the matter with pending civil revision applications was not a ground to dismiss the application or impose such costs. The Court directed the Registry to move the Chief Justice for appropriate orders to have the matters tagged together for hearing.

A division bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar was hearing an appeal filed challenging a Single Judge's order dated September 30, 2025, dismissing their Chamber Summons in a testamentary suit. The impugned order had also imposed costs of ₹25 lakh and issued contempt notices.

The Division Bench noted that the chamber summons had been directed to be heard alongside Civil Revision Application Nos. 456 of 2013 and 882 of 2012. Although the applicants had not taken steps to approach the Chief Justice on the administrative side to seek clubbing of the matters, the Court held that this omission could not justify dismissal of the chamber summons or the imposition of unreasonable costs.

“It is true that the Applicant did not take any steps to move the Hon'ble Chief Justice (on the Administrative Side) to have the matter clubbed with the aforesaid Civil Revision Applications. However, that cannot a ground for dismissing the Chamber Summons and imposing unreasonable costs of Rs.25 Lakhs,” the Court remarked.

The dispute also involved the applicants' claim that they were tenants of the deceased Madhavi Dhirajlal Sagar and subsequently of Mahesh Mithalal Trivedi, who claimed ownership of the building housing the tenanted premises. The eviction suits filed by Sagar had been dismissed, as had the appeals against those decisions. The two civil revision applications challenging the dismissal of those appeals remained pending before the High Court.

The Court questioned how the Single Judge had treated the applicants merely as occupants rather than tenants, when the earlier eviction suits had proceeded on the basis that the first applicant was Sagar's tenant. It observed:

“All these issues would have to be gone into the greater detail when the Chamber Summons is heard alongwith the pending Civil Revision Applications. Once these are the facts, we find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable. It is accordingly set aside.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the Registry to move the Hon'ble Chief Justice (on the Administrative Side) for passing appropriate orders to have the Chamber Summons to be tagged along with Civil Revision Applications.

Case Title: Auto Credit Corporation v. Mukesh Bansilal Shah [Appeal (L) No. 36704 of 2025 in Chamber Summons No. 159 of 2018 in Testamentary Suit No. 94 of 2011 in Testamentary Petition No. 401 of 2011]