Dismissed

Bapu Pandu Chavan (Decd) by Lrs. and Ors. v. Mahadu Nana Jadhav and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Sept 2010CAA/1271/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court declined to restore a civil appeal dismissed in default due to excessive delay exceeding four years and holding that restoration would not serve justice given the 27-year litigation history. Relief was granted to expedite hearing of the counter claim only.

What did the court decide?

Application for restoration dismissed; trial court directed to expedite hearing and dispose of counter claim within six months.

Bapu Pandu Chavan (Decd) by Lrs. and Ors. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1271 OF 2010 IN

¶3

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.233 OF 2002

¶4

Bapu Pandu Chavan Since Deceased through legal heirs 1a. Shri Ramchandra B. Chavan & Ors. v.

¶5

Mahadu N. Jadhav Since Deceased through legal heirs 1a Daulat M. Jadhav & Ors.

¶6

...Applicants

¶7

...Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Abhijeet N. Gosavi, adv., for the Applicants. Mr. Dilip Bodake, adv., for the respondent no.1.

¶9

CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 20th September, 2010

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In 1983

¶12

Mahadu Nana Jadhav filed regular civil suit no.429 of 1983 against

¶13

the defendant Bapu Pandu Chavan. Defendant had filed counter claim.

¶14

Suit was decreed and the counter claim was dismissed. Therefore, the original defendant had preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.482 of 1988. The Appeal was allowed and the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff was set aside. The Appellate Court remanded the matter to the

¶15

extent of counter claim of the defendant to the trial Court with certain

¶16

directions. Against that direction, legal heirs of the original defendant

¶17

¶18

preferred Appeal From Order No.233 of 2002. That appeal came to be dismissed in default on 7th July, 2006. By this application, the appellant/legal heirs of the original defendant seeks restoration of the Appeal From Order. It is pointed out that the original plaintiff had also filed second appeal against dismissal of the suit by the First Appellate Court. That appeal is admitted.

¶19

2 From the above facts, it appears that litigation is pending for the last 27 years. In my considered opinion, no purpose will be served by restoring appeal from order after a gap of more than four years. In fact, the period of about 8 years, which has been lost here, would be more than sufficient for the trial Court to dispose of the counter claim again as per the order passed by the First Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the appeal from order may be admitted and clubbed with the second appeal. That will also not be in the interest of justice. If the appeal from order is finally rejected after some years, matter will have to go back to the trial Court for hearing and deciding the counter claim. Already parties

¶20

are prosecuting this litigation for 27 years. If this method is adopted, final decision of the matter may take about 1520 years more. No valid grounds are given for filing the application for condonation of delay

¶21

¶22

and restoration after dismissal of the appeal from order in July, 2006.

¶23

3 Therefore, this application stands rejected.

¶24

4 Trial Court shall expedite the hearing on the counter claim

¶25

as per the orders of the First Appellate Court and dispose off the same

¶26

as early as possible and preferably within six months.

(J.H.BHATIA, J.)

Bapu Pandu Chavan (Decd) by Lrs. and Ors. v. Mahadu Nana Jadhav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bapu Pandu Chavan (Decd) by Lrs. and Ors. v. Mahadu Nana Jadhav 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

Jaisingh R Nageshkar Vs Rajendra S Nageshkar and Ors.

Smt. Sangeeta Vanamali Vs Tikam Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Radha Enterprises Vs Suresh Vithal Valvekar and Anr.

Smt. Laxmibai Bhaskar Mhatre and Ors. Vs Smt. Shalini Ganpati Mahalkari and Anr.

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs Mr. Gagansingh Hudke

Yasufali Usmanali Siddiqui Vs M/S Universal Hydraulics and Anr.