Allowed

Smt. Prabhawati Wd/O Yadavrao Nardange and 3 Ors. v. Smt. Kisanabai Wd/O Shalikram Pohankar and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jul 2012CAO/462/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered the reasons for delay in the civil application, referred to a Supreme Court decision on similar delay, found good and sufficient reasons existed, and condoned the delay subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Civil application allowed and disposed of subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000 to the respondents.

Smt. Prabhawati Wd/O Yadavrao Nardange and 3… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

2007cao462.10.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION O. NO.462/2010
IN
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.3462/2010
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.325/1999 (D)

¶5

Smt. Prabhawatibai wd/o Yadavrao Nardange and others
...Versus...
Smt. Kisnabai wd/o Shalikram Pohankar and others

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders

¶8

¶9

Shri S.L. Kotwal, Adv. for applicants
Shri B.D. Chute, Adv. for R- 1 to 3

¶10

CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.
DATE : 20.07.2012

¶11

Heard.

¶12

Perused the reasons given in paragraph
no.3 of the application so also the reply filed by
the learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶13

Learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3

¶14

cited the decision in the case ofN.

¶15

Balakrishnan...Versus...M. Krishnamurthy, reported
in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3222. In that case the
delay was of 883 days and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
allowed the condonation of delay by asking the
party to pay the cost.

¶16

2007cao462.10.odt

¶17

¶18

Considering the reasons given by the
learned Counsel for the applicants in paragraph
no.3 of the application, I am satisfied that good
and sufficient reasons exist for condoning the
delay. Hence, delay is condoned. Civil Application
is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees One Thousand Only) to the respondents.

¶19

Civil application stands disposed of.

¶20

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.3462/2010

¶21

Advocate Shri Chute for respondent nos.1
to 3 undertakes to file reply within a period of
three weeks.

¶22

Stand over to 10.08.2012.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

ssw

Smt. Prabhawati Wd/O Yadavrao Nardange and 3 Ors. v. Smt. Kisanabai Wd/O Shalikram Pohankar and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Prabhawati Wd/O Yadavrao Nardange and 3 Ors. v. Smt. Kisanabai Wd/O Shalikram Pohankar and 2 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

Omprakash Harishankar Mishra Vs Dilip Laxmikant Belsare and Nr

Omprakash Harishankar Mishra and 3 Ors. Vs Dilip Laxmikant Belsare and Anr.

Smt. Indira Wd/O Laxmanrao Maske Vs Smt. Kousalyabai Wd/O Sitaram Maske and Others

State of Mah.Thr.Spl.Land Acquisition Officer Vs Namdeo Sambhaji Yede and 4 Others

Namdeo S/O Shambhaji Yede and Ors. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Special Land Acq. Officer, Chandrapur

Shri Samarth New Education Society Thr. Its President Nanakram Magandas Gajipure and Oths Vs Ku. Pushpa D/O Shantilal Dakhane (Maiden Name) Sau. Pushpa Suryawanshi (After Marriage) and Oths