Allowed

Himanshu Maniar v. Uttam Vasudeo Chavan

Bombay HC22 Jul 2009NMW/129/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the order dismissing a writ petition for non-prosecution regarding failure to carry out amendments within the stipulated time. The court restored the petition to the file, directed the petitioner to amend within two weeks, and ordered notice publication.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of dismissal set aside; writ petition restored; time granted for amendments.

Himanshu Maniar Vs Uttam Vasudeo Chavan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

jmi

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.129 OF 2008

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.284 OF 2005.

¶7

Himanshu K. Maniar. .. Petitioner.

¶8

vs.

¶9

Uttam Vasudeo Chavan. .. Respondent.

¶10

Ms. Shobana Gopal, for Petitioner.

¶11

CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 22ND JULY 2009.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

By an order dated 20th December 2007, the petitioner was

¶14

granted permission to carry out amendments to the writ petition.

¶15

However, the order was conditional i.e. the petitioner was required to

¶16

carry out the amendment on or before 11th January 2008 failing which

¶17

the petition was to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without

¶18

further reference to the Court.

¶19

The petitioner could not carry out the amendments on

¶20

¶21

time and the writ petition got dismissed. The notice of motion is

¶22

taken out for restoration of the writ petition and allowing the petitioner to carry out the amendments.

¶23

The respondent was not present when the conditional order dated 20th December 2007 was passed. The petitioner has tried

¶24

to serve the notice of motion on the respondent who in the proceedings filed by him has shown his address as “Shri Uttam Vasudeo Chavan, residing at Shri Krishna General Stores, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 054”. The petitioner has filed an affidavit dated

¶25

10th July 2009, wherein it is stated that he has tried to serve the respondent with the notice of motion at the aforesaid address, when the owner of the said store informed the petitioner that the respondent

¶26

is no longer coming to the said store.

¶27

I have gone through paragraph nos.4, 5 and 6 of the

¶28

affidavit in support of the notice of motion dated 14th March 2008,

¶29

wherein the petitioner has explained the reasons as to why he could not carry out the amendments on or before 11th January 2008. I am

¶30

¶31

satisfied with the case made out on behalf of the petitioner and I set

¶32

aside the order of dismissal of above writ petition and direct the same

¶33

to be restored to file. The petitioner to carry out amendments to the

¶34

petition within a period of 2 weeks from today.

¶35

In view thereof, notice of motion stands disposed of. Place the writ petition for admission on 2nd September 2009.

¶36

In the meantime, petitioner shall publish an

¶37

advertisement in two newspapers i.e. “Free Press Journal” and “Loksatta”, stating that the writ petition which was dismissed earlier

¶38

has been restored by this order and that the petition has been placed

¶39

for admission on 2nd September 2009.

Himanshu Maniar v. Uttam Vasudeo Chavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Maniar v. Uttam Vasudeo Chavan

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

Janki Hotchand Bakshani Vs Vijay Baldev Boolani and Anr.

Renu Mahtani Vs Vijay Baldev Boolani and Anr.

Pushpa Sadhvani, Vs Vijay Baldev Boolani

Rashtriya Girni Kamgar Sangh Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors.

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Vs Ashok Ramji Pawar

Anju Subhash Valecha Vs Kishinchand S. Laungani.