Allowed

Sonali Dinesh More v. Dinesh Shakarnagth More

Bombay HC6 Mar 2012CAM/273/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed an application in a matter before the Family Court, holding that the applicant's explanation for procedural delays was plausible. The respondent failed to file a reply and was absent; the court restored related civil applications for hearing and directed no future adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Civil Application Nos. 266 and 267 of 2008 restored for hearing on 21 March, 2012; no future adjournments entertained.

Sonali Dinesh More Vs Dinesh Shakarnagth More — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 27311

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

vgm

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 273 OF 2011 IN FAMILYCOURT APPEAL NO. 182 OF 2008

¶6

Sonali Dinesh More ...Applicant

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Dinesh Shankarnath More ...Respondent

¶9

Mr. D.J. Shejul with Mr. R.S. Pandit for the Applicant

¶10

Mr. J.M. Puranik for the Respondent

¶11

CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND N.M. JAMDAR, JJ. DATE: MARCH 06, 2012

¶12

P.C .:-

¶13

Heard the counsel for the parties. Perused the application and the additional affidavit filed in support of this application.

¶14

Although this application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to allow this application in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), having

¶15

2 27311

¶16

found that the explanation offered is a satisfactory and plausible explanation.

¶17

3. Accordingly, application is allowed on the above terms.

¶18

The counsel for the respondent submits that he has not filed reply so far. Nothing prevented the respondent to file the said replyaffidavit. Moreover, it is noticed that the respondent was also not present on 5th August, 2010 when the order in question was passed. Besides, as observed earlier, we are satisfied that the explanation offered by the applicant, which is supported by the personal affidavit of the advocate, is a satisfactory and plausible explanation, and it is well-established position that the litigant should not suffer for the mistake of his advocate. Even if the respondent were to file reply-affidavit, the situation would be no different, and the order passed earlier would be inevitable in the fact situation of the present case.

¶19

Hence, application is allowed.

¶20

The restored Civil Application Nos. 266 and 267 of 2008

¶21

st shall proceed for hearing on 21 March, 2012 .

¶22

3 27311

¶23

It is made clear that no request for adjournment or keeping

¶24

back the matter on any count at the instance of any of the parties will be

¶25

entertained on future dates.

¶26

N.M. JAMDAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

Sonali Dinesh More v. Dinesh Shakarnagth More

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonali Dinesh More v. Dinesh Shakarnagth More

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

Miss Jagdevi Gurunath Khedgikar Vs the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Pune Region

Palm Towers Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Ors. Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Dr. Sureshchandra R. Bhosale and Ors. Vs University of Pune and Ors.

Gopal Pamnani Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sou. Latadevi Jalinder Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Social Justice and Special Assistance and Ors.

Mr. Rohitbhai M. Patel Vs the Commissioner, Vasai Virar City Corporation and Ors.