The High Court of Bombay allowed a Notice of Motion seeking to transpose the first Appellant as Respondent No.2 in an appeal, dismissing the opposite party's objection and fixing the matter for final hearing.
Notice of Motion made absolute; Appellant No.1 to be transposed as Respondent No.2 and amended within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4113 OF 2005
IN
APPEAL NO. 914 OF 2002
Ratilal B. Shah & Anr. ..Appellants
versus
Dhirajlal B. Shah ..Respondent
Mr. R. C. Kaushik for the Appellants.
Ms. R. Shinde for the Respondent.
CORAM : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
S. J. VAZIFDAR, JJ.
DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2006
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants and
the Respondent. By this Notice of Motion, the
Appellant No.1 is seeking to be transposed as
Respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the Respondent
has no objection. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion
is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and
(b). Amendment to be carried out within a period of
four weeks from today. The above Appeal be placed
on board for final hearing on 12.6.2006.
(DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. )
:2:
(S. J. VAZIFDAR, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Notice of Motion to transpose Appellant No.1 as Respondent No.2 should be allowed.
Ratilal B. Shah
Dhirajlal B. Shah
S. Radhakrishnan
S. J. Vazifdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court