Allowed

Smt Deokabai Samadhan Sultane v. Shaligram Pundlik Bhise

Bombay HC3 Aug 2012CAO/581/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a substitution application allowing legal representatives of a deceased respondent to be substituted in a pending Second Appeal, citing that the prior application remained pending due to non-passing of order, not default.

What did the court decide?

Civil Application No.9112/2008 allowed permitting substitution of legal representatives of respondent Shaligram Bhise.

Smt Deokabai Samadhan Sultane Vs Shaligram… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

0308CAO581.12

¶2

1/3

¶3

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

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.581 OF 2012 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9112 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.181 OF 1995

¶5

(Smt. Deokabai w/o Samadhan Sultane vs. Shaligram Pundlik Bhise)

¶6

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

¶7

Mrs. Aawachat, Advocate for applicants.

¶8

CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 3, 2012

¶9

This is an application for substituting the names of the legal representatives of original respondent Shaligram Bhise, who died on 26/11/2007.

¶10

Second Appeal No.181/1995 was dismissed by this Court on 18/4/2011 with a further direction to return back the amount with interest accrued thereon to the original appellant.

¶11

It is brought to the notice of this Court that Civil Application No.9112/2008 for bringing

¶12

0308CAO581.12

¶13

legal representatives of respondent Shaligram Bhise was already filed before the said judgment was delivered by this Court, but was not listed before this Court by the Office. Thus, the application was filed well within time, but it remained pending for the formal order of allowing the said application. A copy of the said application was served on the Counsel for the appellant on 19/12/2007. That being so, in my opinion, it would make no difference if the legal representatives of the respondent are allowed to be brought on record by substituting the same in the array of the respondent in place of Shaligram Bhise since it is the case of non passing of the order on the said old application. Hence, I make the following order :

¶14

Civil Application No.581/2012 is

¶15

disposed of.

¶16

Civil Application No.9112/2008 is allowed permitting the legal representatives of respondent Shaligram Bhise to be substituted in place of respondent Shaligram Bhise as mentioned in

¶17

0308CAO581.12

¶18

3/3

¶19

para (1) of the civil application. Let the necessary amendment be carried out in the title of the respondent in the second appeal. The civil application is disposed of.

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

khj

Smt Deokabai Samadhan Sultane v. Shaligram Pundlik Bhise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Deokabai Samadhan Sultane v. Shaligram Pundlik Bhise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

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

V.I.D.C., Thr Exe. Eng. Lower Wardha Project Division, Wardha Vs Rambhau S/O Govindrao Kamble and Others

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

Bhimshankar S/O Keshaorao Duddalwar Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Collector, Yavatmal and Another