Allowed

Ajit Singh Harnam Singh v. Rahim Abdul Hafeez and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Sept 2007CAF/2307/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed an appeal to restore a matter dismissed for want of prosecution, permitting the ex-parte appellant to file the paper book within two weeks and setting the matter for final hearing with an advocate appointed amicus-curiae.

What did the court decide?

The application to restore the matter is allowed; leave is granted to file the private paper book within two weeks.

Ajit Singh Harnam Singh Vs Rahim Abdul Hafeez… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

ssm

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2307 OF 2007

¶5

IN

¶6

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 305 OF 2006

¶7

Ajitsing Harnamsingh...Applicant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Dr. Rahim Abdul Hafeez & Ors.

¶10

...Respondents.

¶11

Mr.Ajitsingh Harnamsingh, applicant present, in
person.

¶12

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.

¶13

DATED : 18th September, 2007

¶14

P.C.

¶15

1. On 18/04/2006 while admitting the first appeal,
this Court has directed the appellant to file the
private paper book within six months. The appellant
is unable to file the same, therefore, the matter was
dismissed for want of prosecution. None appeared for
the respondent at that time.

¶16

2. On 21/08/2007, the statement was made that the
appellant, who is appearing in person had filed paper
book two months before. The appellant has filed
affidavit of service. None appeared for the
respondents. Considering the facts and circumstances

¶17

( 2 )

¶18

of the case, I am of the view that applicant has made
out the sufficient cause to restore the matter. The
application, is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (a), (b) and (c). The applicant is permitted
to file private paper book within two weeks, if not
filed already.

¶19

3. Put the matter for final hearing (H.O.B.) on 9th
October, 2007. As requested by the applicant who is
in person, Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, Advocate is
appointed as amicus-curiae, who is also appearing in
all other four matters, on behalf of the applicant.
Office to send, notice accordingly.

¶20

4. Application is disposed of, accordingly.

¶21

[ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.)

Ajit Singh Harnam Singh v. Rahim Abdul Hafeez and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Singh Harnam Singh v. Rahim Abdul Hafeez and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Laxman Chanderkar Vs Smt. Anandibai Laxman Chanderkar and Ors.

State of Maharashtra. Vs Parashuram Bhiwa Patil.

State of Maharashtra. Vs Ramesh Rama Patil and Ors.

Motichand R Ahir Vs Radhabai W/O Krishna Sawant and Ors.

Motichand R Ahir Vs Radhabai W/O Krishna Sawant and Ors.

Mr. Uttam Kumar Rao Vs Bank of India