Dismissed

Baburao Bappasaheb Kokate and Anr. v. Bhimrao Limbadas Kadam and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Aug 2010RA/108/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a review application challenging an order dismissing an appeal for default. The Court held that the absence of the petitioner and advocate rendered the default warranting dismissal, and no new grounds for a no objection certificate disclosure or discovery arose to justify review.

What did the court decide?

Review Petition dismissed; no interference in the order under review.

Baburao Bappasaheb Kokate and Anr. Vs Bhimrao… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2010

¶5

IN CA NO.11676/2009 IN CAST NO.23204/2009 IN CA NO.2606/2006 IN S.A.NO.169/2006

¶6

(Baburao s/o Bappasaheb Kokate and another

¶7

vs.

¶8

Bhimrao s/o Limbadas Kadam and others)

¶9

--------------------------------------------------
Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or
Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s

¶10

or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders

¶11

Mr.Y.M.Khan, Advocate for
the applicants.

¶12

Mr. R.T.Deshmukh, Adv., for
respondent nos. 1 and 2 in SA.
R.Nos. 3 & 4 served.

¶13

...

¶14

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.
 DATE: 25/8/2010

¶15

...

¶16

1.Heard learned Counsel for

¶17

respective parties. Mr.Y.M.Khan,
learned Counsel, submits that the
order dt.26.3.2010 passed by this
Court needs to be reviewed.
There is good ground certificate
signed by Mr.Khan, and not by
earlier Advocate.

¶18

2.Learned Counsel representing
respondent nos. 1 and 2 invited my

¶19

¶20

attention to the judgment of the
Apex Court in the matter of
M.Poornachandran and another Vs.
State of T.N.and others ( AIR 1997
SUPREME COURT 1285). The Apex
Court has held, while moving
review application, a no objection
certificate from the Advocate on
recordintheappeal,is
essential. Filing of no
objection certificate would be the
basis for him to come on record.
The Apex Court, in the said case,
observed, "the failure to obtain
the no objection certificate from
theerstwhileCounselhas
disentitled him to file the review
petition".

¶21

3.In another matter reported in
AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1005
( T.N.Electricity Board and
another V. N.Raju Reddiar and
another ) the Apex Court
observed, "it is a sad spectacle
that new practice unbecoming of
worthy and conducive to the
profession is cropping up".

¶22

4.The decision in RCS No.

¶23

¶24

188/1997 by the judgment and
decree dt.14.9.2000 was challenged
in RCA No.150/2000 before the
learned District Judge, Jalna.
The said appeal was allowed by
order dt.25.7.2005. Resultantly,
the decree was set aside. It was
this order, which was questioned
in Second Appeal N.169/2006 which
waspendingforadmission.
Noticeswereissuedand
respondentscausedtheir
appearance. The matter, as could
be seen, was not diligently
attended and resultantly, Second
Appeal was dismissed in default on
12th Feb.,2007.

¶25

restoration of the said appeal was
moved. It was called on 12th
June, 2009, however, the slumber
was repeated in not attending the
same inviting its dismissal.
Another C.A.No.11676/2009 seeking
to condone 92 days delay was
moved. It was also dismissed by
order dt.26th March, 2010 of which
review is sought. Learned Counsel
in the application has stated in

¶26

¶27

the grounds, that the absence of
the petitioner when the matter was
called was not intentional but it
was the fault of the Advocate who
did not remain present. The
Advocate even did not remain
presenttoattendC.A.No.
2606/2010. The petitioners claim
that they are poor agriculturist
and matter relates to valuable
landed property and they are
fighting for justice since last
ten years. Basically, RCS No.
239/1987 was seeking to challenge
a compromise between the parties
in the said litigation RCS No.
239/1987 to be invalid.

¶28

6.I do not see any good ground
emerging in entertaining the
review petition as there is
nothing to display or portray
discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after
exercise of due diligence, was not
within the knowledge of the
petitioner or his Advocate.
There is no sufficient reason
explained for the absence on the
dates referred above. The

¶29

¶30

review, in the set of above
situation, does not indicate any
decision on a question of law was
erroneously given by this Court.

¶31

Surveyofabovefacts

¶32

illustrate, the review petition
lacks merit. No interference in
the order under review. Review
Petition dismissed. The
observations to be restricted to
the present cause. No costs.

¶33

...

¶34

AGP/108-10rp

Baburao Bappasaheb Kokate and Anr. v. Bhimrao Limbadas Kadam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baburao Bappasaheb Kokate and Anr. v. Bhimrao Limbadas Kadam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bashubee Dilawarkhan. Vs Suyarabee Pyarekhan Died Per Lrs Dilawar Khan Pyare Khan and Others.

Maharashtra State Handloom Corpn.Ltd Vs Hon'Ble Member,Inds.Court of Mah. and Another

Maharashtra State Handloom Corpn.Ltd Vs Hon'Ble Member,Inds.Court of Mah. and Another

Govind Mukundrao Kulkarni and Anr. Vs Chhagan Shankarrao Kulkarni

Bapurao Dagdu Chavan Alias Gavare and Anr. Vs Shankar Pralhad Chavan Alias Gavare and Anr.

Sunil Bhikanrao Garud Vs President Gram Vikas Mandal Pimpalgaon (Hare) and Ors.