Dismissed

Smt. Bhavana Praful Kamdar Alias Smt. Bhavana Jayesh Joshi v. Sarla P. Sata

Bombay HC29 Nov 2011NMA/2551/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal by consent, provided the appellant deposits the decretal amount within four weeks. Upon deposit, the impugned order is set aside, and the summary suit is remitted to the Single Judge for trial. Failure to deposit results in dismissal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside the impugned order and remitting Summary Suit No.1277 of 2000 to the Single Judge upon deposit of decretal amount within four weeks; otherwise, the appeal stands dismissed.

Smt. Bhavana Praful Kamdar Alias Smt. Bhavana Jayesh… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

pvr al559-nm2551-11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

Smt.Bhavana Praful Kamdar.
vs.

¶5

...Appellant

¶6

Smt.Sarla P.Sata....Respondent

¶7

Mr.Mandar V.Limaye, for Appellant.

¶8

Mr.Viral D.Shukla i/b. Shukla & Associates, for
Respondent.

¶9

CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH &
ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

¶10

DATED: 29th November,2011.

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

1.Heard. By consent, notice of motion is

¶13

granted in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶14

(D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)

¶15

(ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.)

¶16

pvr al559-nm2551-11

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶18

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶19

APPEAL (lodg) NO.559 OF 2011
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1277 OF 2000

¶20

Smt.Bhavana Praful Kamdar.
vs.

¶21

...Appellant

¶22

Smt.Sarla P.Sata....Respondent

¶23

Mr.Mandar V.Limaye, for Appellant.

¶24

Mr.Viral D.Shukla i/b. Shukla & Associates, for
Respondent.

¶25

CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH &
ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

¶26

DATED: 29th November,2011.

¶27

P.C.:-

¶28

Admit. Heard finally by consent of

¶29

parties. By consent, the appeal is disposed of in
the following terms:-

¶30

1.On the appellant depositing in this

¶31

Court, with due intimation to the plaintiff, the

¶32

 al559-nm2551-11

¶33

- 2 -

¶34

decreetal amount within a period of four weeks

¶35

from today, the order impugned in the appeal
shall stand set aside and summary Suit no.1277 of
2000 shall stand remitted back to the learned

¶36

Single Judge for trial and decision in accordance

¶37

with law. The Trial Court may permit the

¶38

appellant-defendant to cross examine the
witnesses examined by the plaintiff and may also
permit the appellant-defendant to lead his own
oral and documentary evidence.

¶39

2.The Prothonotary & Senior Master of this

¶40

Court shall permit the plaintiff-respondent to
withdraw the amount which is to be deposited by

¶41

the appellant on furnishing an undertaking to the

¶42

Court undertaking therein to bring back the

¶43

amount if so directed by the learned Single Judge

¶44

at the final disposal of the suit and on such
terms and conditions as may be directed by the

¶45

learned Single Judge and giving bank guarantee of

¶46

pvr al559-nm2551-11

¶47

- 3 -

¶48

a nationalised bank to the satisfaction of the

¶49

Prothonotary & Sr. Master of this Court.

¶50

3.The withdrawal shall be permitted within

¶51

a period of Eight weeks from the date of deposit.

¶52

If the amount is not withdrawn within that time,

¶53

it will be invested in fixed deposit in a
nationalised bank to the credit of Suit no.1277
of 2000. At the final disposal of the suit, the
learned Single Judge will make an appropriate
order in relation to the disposal of the amount.

¶54

In case the appellant does not deposit the amount
within the aforesaid period, the present appeal
shall be treated as dismissed.

¶55

4.Considering the health of the original
plaintiff, the learned Single Judge is requested

¶56

to hear and dispose of the suit at an early date.

¶57

(D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)

¶58

(ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.)

Smt. Bhavana Praful Kamdar Alias Smt. Bhavana Jayesh Joshi v. Sarla P. Sata

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bhavana Praful Kamdar Alias Smt. Bhavana Jayesh Joshi v. Sarla P. Sata

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

Sharadchandra Ganesh Mulay Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Ladakbhai Janyabhai Mishal Vs Shri. Kamlakar Govindbhai Kharpadia and Ors.

The General Manager, Forest Development Corporation, Nashik and Ors. Vs Shri. H. S. Pawar and Ors.

Mr. Dashrath Ramchandra Satav and Anr. Vs the Nav Madhuban Co-Op Soc. Ltd.

The Divisional Manager, Vs Vinayak Kure

Smt. Bhavana Praful Kamdar Alias Smt. Bhavana Jayesh Joshi Vs Sarla P. Sata