Quick Summary:
In a recent court case in Satara, Maharashtra, a decision about skipping a legal notice requirement led to a heated legal debate. The Bombay High Court's Kolhapur bench, led by Judge S. G. Chapalgaonkar, ruled on this intriguing case on November 24, 2025.
Snehankita and Pankaj Pawar, both businesspeople from Satara, filed a lawsuit to stop Shirkant Shivaji Todkar from selling or changing a property. They wanted quick court action, so they asked to skip the usual legal notice required under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
On September 2, 2021, the Civil Judge in Satara let Snehankita and Pankaj Pawar skip the notice. This meant they could quickly move forward with their case without the usual waiting period.
However, on October 4, 2021, their request for temporary protection was denied. The judge decided that since they didn’t get this protection, the earlier decision to skip the notice was canceled. The court ordered the return of their lawsuit for not following Section 80 of the CPC.
The Pawars' lawyer, Mr. Manmath Athalye, argued that once the notice skipping is allowed, it shouldn't be taken back just because temporary protection was denied. He cited past cases to support this, saying objections should be raised differently.
"Once permission under Section 80 of CPC is granted, it cannot be canceled only because temporary protection was refused," argued Mr. Athalye.
Judge S. G. Chapalgaonkar agreed with Snehankita and Pankaj Pawar. He found that once the skipping notice was granted, it shouldn't have been revoked after the temporary protection decision. The order to return the lawsuit was canceled, meaning the Pawars could continue without the notice.
The court allowed the Pawars' petition in part, setting aside the order that canceled their notice waiver. The case highlights an important legal principle and sets a precedent for similar future cases.
