IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY rrpillai ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3061 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 69 OF 2024 National Stock Exchange of India Ltd … Applicant Vs.

Kaynet Finance Limited … Respondent Mr. Ranjeev Carvalho a/w. Mr. Sachin Chandarana and Mr. Amol Rasal i/b. M/s. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co.for the Applicant/Plaintiff.

Ms. Siddha Pamechna a/w. Ms. Prachi Kolembokar and Ms. Kajal Naidu i/b. M/s. Thodur Law Associates for Defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4.

Mr. Sachin Pawar for Defendant No. 3.

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATE : 16^th JANUARY 2026 ORDER :

1. By order dated 6^th January 2025 leave to amend was granted to delete defendant no. 5. In the hard copy placed before the court there is no amendment carried out, however, in the soft copy the amendment is seen. As per Rule 152 of Chapter XI of Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules any Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI amendment made pursuant to an order must be attested by RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI

Date:

2026.01.20

the Prothonotary and Senior Master or Master and Assistant Prothonotary or any one of the Assistant Masters or Associates. In the present case, there is no such attestation made. Neither by way of a proforma nor as a case note, there is any remark of the office recording whether order dated 6^th January 2025 is complied with and amendment as required under the rules is carried out.Though reverification was not dispensed with the amended plaint is uploaded without any reverification and without any attestation as contemplated under Rule 152 Chapter XI of Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules.

2. As per Rule 10 of the e-filing rules the originals of the documents are to be retained by the Registrant(s) i.e. the Advocate or party who uploads the soft copy. Rule 17 of the e-filing rules provides that the e-filing rules are not in derogation to the provisions of any substantive or procedural law applicable for disposal of proceedings by the courts. Hence, it is the duty of the concerned officer to verify whether all the necessary compliance are made before the original court file is placed before this court.

3. Rule 16 of the e-filing rules provides that Advocate as well as parties, may print hard copies of all pleadings and documents filed electronically for their use in the court or elsewhere. The rule further provides that the Registry will wherever require prepare hard copies for official use.

4. In my court, most of the times due to technical error or network issue, the soft copies are not accessible. All the office reports, and service reports are not uploaded in the soft file. It is very inconvenient to partly refer to soft file and partly hard copy. Hence, in such a situation it is necessary to refer only to the hard copies. Therefore, it is the duty of the registry and the concerned officer-in-charge of the suit record, to verify whether all the necessary compliance are made and the hard copies placed before the court are the replica of the soft copies.

5. As the filing of the suit is made mandatory through e- filing portal and when the necessary infrastructure is inadequate and proper network connection is not available for the court, and there are problems in accessing e-files due to technical errors and network issues, it is the duty of the registry to place the correct hard copies before the court.

6. I am constrained to record that despite various oral requests and directions sent to the office and the registry, hard copies are not placed before the court as per the actual e-filing copies. I am also constrained to record that in every alternate matter, I am required to spend time to verify whether necessary compliance are made or not.

7. Unfortunately, no efforts are made on behalf of the registry and the concerned officers to rectify the errors and place the correct hard copies before the court. When the suits are dealt with by this court, it is necessary to maintain the original record in accordance with the