Allowed

Shri Rahul Uttamchand Chopada v. Smt Mangala Madhav Kharadkar and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Aug 2007RPA/16/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a review application seeking to recall an order allowing condonation of delay. The court recalled the previous order and restored the application to the file based on the understanding reached between counsel for an adjournment, which was not brought to the court's notice during the initial hearing.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 21st June 2007 allowing condonation of delay is recalled; the said Application is restored to the file.

Shri Rahul Uttamchand Chopada Vs Smt Mangala… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW APPLICATION ST.NO.16585 OF 2007

¶3

 Mr.Rahul Uttamchand Chopada

¶4

...Applicant

¶5

vs.

¶6

Mangala Madhav Kharadkar & Anr....Respondents

¶7

Mr.M.J.Jamdar i/b Mr.Amogh Paralikar for the Applicant.
 Mr.A.K.Abhyankar with Mr.S.G.Karandikar for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM: A.S.OKA,J.
DATE : AUGUST 24, 2007.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the

¶11

 learned senior Counsel for the Respondents. The review sought
 is of the order dated 21st June 2007 passed by this court by
 which the application for condonation of delay in preferring
 the Appeal from Order was allowed. The learned counsel for
 the applicant pointed out that on the day on which the
 application for condonation of delay along with companion
 applications appeared before this court, the Advocate for the
 Applicant was unable to remain present and therefore, he
 contacted the Advocate on record for the Respondents. It is
 stated that it was agreed between the Advocates that a request

¶12

 will be made by consent for grant of an adjournment till 29th
 June 2007 when an application for condonation of delay in a
 companion Appeal was scheduled to come up. The learned
 Advocate on record for the Respondents fairly stated that
 there was such discussion between himself and the Advocate for

¶13

-2-

¶14

the Applicants. However, he himself was unable to remain

¶15

 present when the applications were called out and therefore,
 he could not bring the aforesaid understanding to the notice

¶16

 2. Considering the aforesaid ground made out in the Review
 Application, I am of the view that the order passed on 21st
 June 2007 needs to be recalled. The said learned Senior
 Counsel for the Respondents states that he has no objection if
 the Application for condonation of delay is immediately heard
 by this Court. The learned Counsel for the Applicant states
 that he has no objection if the Application for condonation of
 delay is immediately taken up for hearing by this Court.

¶17

 3. In view of the aforesaid submissions made before me, the
 Review Petition is disposed of by passing the following order:

¶18

 . The order dated 21st June 2007 passed on application for
 condonation of delay is recalled and the said Application is
 restored to the file.

¶19

JUDGE

Shri Rahul Uttamchand Chopada v. Smt Mangala Madhav Kharadkar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Rahul Uttamchand Chopada v. Smt Mangala Madhav Kharadkar and Anr.

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

Mrs. Archana Alias Varsha Dipak Dalani Vs Mr. Dipak S/O Shankerlal Dalani

Rita Mananprasad Bhondekar Vs Mananprasad Tarachand Bhondekar

Amar Mahadeo Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Smt.Mangala Madhav Kharadkar and Another Vs Rajendrakumar Bansilal Raisoni

Shri Pradeep Bansilal Raisoni Vs Smt. Mangala Madhav Kharadkar and Anr.

Shri Pradeep Bansilal Raisoni Vs Smt. Mangala Madhav Kharadkar and Anr.