Dismissed

Pandit Ganpatrao Shinde and Ors. v. the Tahsil Office through Tahsildar and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jul 2010CA/3198/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a civil application for condonation of delay in filing a second appeal, deeming the reason of failed settlement insufficient. A dependent application was disposed of as it stood disposed with the earlier one.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed and dependent civil application disposed of.

Pandit Ganpatrao Shinde and Ors. Vs the Tahsil… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.__________

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGBAD.

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3198 OF 2010

¶5

¶6

SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 5520 OF 2010

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of | Coram, appearances, Court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar/s orders | and Registrar’s orders |

¶8

CORAM : P. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 23rd JULY, 2010.

¶9

1 Heard Shri S.B. Ghute, Advocate for the applicants and Shri S.P. Urgunde, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4.

¶10

2 This is an application for condonation of delay of 515 days in filing second appeal. Present appellants are original plaintiffs. They have filed suit under section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code challenging the order thereby giving right of way to the respondents through the property of the appellants. Trial court so also the first appellate court have concurrently held that respondents have right of way and there is nothing to interfere

¶11

¶12

with the order passed under the provisions of Land Revenue Code. In paragraph no.3 of the application it is stated that after decision in the District Court, the parties were making attempts for settling the matter out side the court and there were about 7 to 8 meetings. Ultimately, it was realised by the applicants that there is no point in settlement. This reason is not sufficient. Moreover, this application is already dismissed so far as respondent nos. 5/1 and 6 are concerned. So it cannot be said that the right of way will be there for respondent nos. 5/1 and 6, but Same should not be there for respondent n os. 2 to 5. In the facts and circumstances, application is dismissed.

¶13

dyb / office/ca3198.10.odt

¶14

¶15

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.__________

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGBAD.

¶17

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3199 OF 2010

¶18

¶19

SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 5920 OF 2010

¶20

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of |

¶21

Coram, appearances, Court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar/s orders | and Registrar’s orders |

¶22

CORAM : P. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 23rd JULY, 2010.

¶23

. In view of dismissal of Civil

¶24

Application no. 3198/2010, this application does not survive and stands disposed of.

¶25

( P. R. BORKAR, J.)

¶26

dyb / office/ca3198.10.odt

Pandit Ganpatrao Shinde and Ors. v. the Tahsil Office through Tahsildar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandit Ganpatrao Shinde and Ors. v. the Tahsil Office through Tahsildar 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

Narhari Piraji Tipre and Others Vs Ramkishan Maroti Bhise and Another

Malati W/O.Shrikrishna Patke and Others Vs Vasudeo Tukaram Ghanbahadub (Died) through Lrs. Padmabai W/O.v.Ghandahadur and Anr.

Devichand Dharmachand Jain L.Rs. Pankawarbai Devichand Jain and ORS271 Vs Pramod Kashinath Sonar

Mahadeo Bapu Thombare Vs Dattu Janu Thombare

Kacheshwar Chintamani Jorvekar and Ors. Vs Gorekha Namdeo Jorvekar and Ors.

Godawari Marathwada Irri Dev Corpn a.Bad through Its Exe.Engineer Nanded Minor Irri Divn Nanded Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.