Dismissed

Sakhubai Pandu @ Pandurang Kokare @ Dhangar (Decd.)by Lrs.- Anant Pandu @ Pandurang Kokare and Ors. v. Abdu Banya Kokare @ Dhankar (Decd.) by Lrs.- Manjulabai Abu Kokare @ Dhangar and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Oct 2007WP/4872/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the First Appellate Court's dismissal of an appeal against a partition decree, citing mental ailment of a power of attorney holder as ground for condoning delay. High Court dismissed the writ petition as no interference was called for.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition summarily dismissed.

What the court decided

Sakhubai Pandu @ Pandurang Kokare @ Dhangar (Decd.)by Lrs.- Anant… — Partition | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO. 4872 OF 2007

¶4

 Sakhubai Pandu @ Pandurang
 Kokare @ Dhangar (deceased)
 through L.Rs. and ors. .... Petitioner

¶5

 versus

¶6

 Aabdul Banya Kokare @ Dhankar
 (deceased) through L.Rs. & ors....... Respondent.

¶7

 Shri B.G. Tangsali for the petitioner.

¶8

 CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED; 23RD OCTOBER, 2007

¶9

P.C.;

¶10

 1. The plaintiff instituted a suit for partition

¶11

 against the present petitioners. There were 19
 defendants. No one filed written statement. The suit
 came to be decreed without any contest after the court
 passed an order of "no W.S." After a lapse of more
 than three years an appeal along with an application
 for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal came
 to be filed before the District Judge, Ratnagiri. In
 support of the case of the appellants, a medical
 certificate issued by a psychiatrist was filed which
 mentions that the power of attorney holder of the
 present petitioners was suffering from mental ailment
 from the year 1999 to 2003. The doctor was not

¶12

 examined. The First Appellate Court has observed that
 the suit is of the year 1995 and no w.s. order was
 passed on 9-7-1997, i.e. before the alleged ailment
 of the power of attorney holder. Taking over all view
 of the matter, the First Appellate Court has held that
 no sufficient cause is shown by the appellant for
 condonation of delay.

¶13

 2. Perused the order. The same goes to take a
 possible view of the matter, and does not call for any
 interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Hence
 writ petition is summarily dismissed.

Sakhubai Pandu @ Pandurang Kokare @ Dhangar (Decd.)by Lrs.- Anant Pandu @ Pandurang Kokare and Ors. v. Abdu Banya Kokare @ Dhankar (Decd.) by Lrs.- Manjulabai Abu Kokare @ Dhangar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Sakhubai Pandu @ Pandurang Kokare @ Dhangar (Decd.)by Lrs.- Anant Pandu @ Pandurang Kokare and Ors. v. Abdu Banya Kokare @ Dhankar (Decd.) by Lrs.- Manjulabai Abu Kokare @ Dhangar 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

Abhijit Ananda Patil Vs Nemgonda Raigonda Patil and Ors.

Ichalkarnji Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs the Divisional Jt. Reg. Co-Op. Soci. and Ors.

Mahindra and Mahindra Limited Vs Pandurang Govind Shelar and Anr.

Atmaram Bajirao Nanavare and Ors. Vs Sheshabai Balu Nanavare

M/S. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. Vs Niphad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Darshana Pradip Palwankar Vs Pradip Chandrakant Palwankar