Allowed

Ketan Jayantilal Shah and Anr. v. Rohitkumar Amrutlal Shah and 14 Ors.

Bombay HC12 Oct 2009NMA/2453/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court condoned a 965-day delay in filing an appeal in a partition suit, subject to the appellants depositing Rs. 1.0 lac each as costs. Failure to comply would result in dismissal of the notice of motion.

What did the court decide?

Notice of motion made absolute; appeal listed for admission subject to deposit of Rs. 1.0 lac each by appellants as costs.

Ketan Jayantilal Shah and Anr. Vs Rohitkumar Amrutlal Shah and 14… — Partition | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2453 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO.361 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.710 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO.206 OF 2004

¶5

Ketan Jayantilal Shah and Anr.

¶6

.. Appellants

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Smt.Charu S. Mehta & Ors. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr.Tushar Goradia for the appellants

¶10

Mr.Paritosh Jaiswal alongwith Mr.Ashutosh Gavnekar i/b M/s.Kanga and Co. for respondent nos.3 to 11, 13A and 13B

¶11

Ms.Leena Shah i/b M/s.Niranjan and Co. for respondent nos.14 and 15

¶12

CORAM : J. N. PATEL &

¶13

Smt.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, JJ

¶14

DATE : 12TH OCTOBER, 2009

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

Heard.

¶17

Taking into consideration that this matter being a suit for partition, though the lapses on the part of the appellant (original plaintiff) does not

¶18

¶19

require to be condoned and the learned single Judge in the impugned order offered to the plaintiffs to pay cost so that delay can be condoned, unfortunately, even that was not acceptable to the learned Advocate who was then appearing for the plaintiffs.

¶20

The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the appellant is a chronic defaulter and even in this case, the appeal has been filed after 965 days of delay. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to condone the same as there is another suit filed by one of the legal heirs.

¶21

We condone the delay but subject to cost of Rs.1.0 lac each to be paid by the appellants on or before 10/11/2009 by depositing the same in this court. On such deposit being made, the respondent nos.3 to 13 would be entitled to withdraw the same and appropriate it in equal proportion. We make it clear that on failure to deposit the cost as directed by this court, notice of motion would stand dismissed. On the aforesaid condition, notice of motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Appeal be listed for admission on 10.11.2009.

¶22

( J. N. Patel, J)

¶23

(Smt.R.P.Sondurbaldota, J)

¶24

Ketan Jayantilal Shah and Anr. v. Rohitkumar Amrutlal Shah and 14 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ketan Jayantilal Shah and Anr. v. Rohitkumar Amrutlal Shah and 14 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

The Chairman,Society for People'S Development,Vadal Bunglow. Vs State of Maharashtra and Others.

Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation Vs Harit Vasai Saurkshan Smirti Prasanna Sonarbha and Ors.

Vikram Bhikoba Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs S.. K. Nanal

Ketan Jayantilal Shah and Anr. Vs Rohitkumar Amrutlal Shah and 14 Ors.

Kishan S/O Sanwarmal Kedia , Mumbai Vs Mrs. Nisha a. Rebello and 6 Others