This court dismissed a Notice of Motion seeking an extension of time to serve in a testamentary suit. The notice was never served despite multiple adjournments and extensions granted to the plaintiff, leading to dismissal for want of service and prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
mnm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 83 OF 2009 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 45 OF 1989 IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.99 OF 1989
Sister M. Herlinde Vs.
Mr. Michael Lopez
...Plaintiff ...Defendant
Mr.Clement Lobo, Advocate for the Plaintiff None for the Defendant
CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.
DATED : 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2010
P.C. :
but not served. On 11th August 2009 it was kept on board for dismissal on 18th August 2009. On 18th August 2009 service by all possible modes was permitted. Thereafter, the Notice of Motion was adjourned on 1st December 2009, 2nd February 2010, 2nd March 2010 and 11th June 2010. Time to serve Notice of Motion has been extended and Plaintiff has been given from time to time adjournments to serve.
(SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Notice of Motion for extension of time to serve should be dismissed for want of service and prosecution.
Sister M. Herlinde
Mr. Michael Lopez
Roshan Dalvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
