Single judge ordered allowed civil applications for condonation of delay regarding restoration of first appeals dismissed for non-removal of office objections, attributed to counsel's death.
Civil applications for condonation of delay were allowed and the first appeals were restored to the file for admission.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
070512cao1613.11 .odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION CAO NO.1611/2011 IN M.C.A. 19198/2011 IN F.A. 404/2002 [JAIGOPAL YADAO RUKHMODE & ORS ..VS.. TALARAM BALIRAM HUME]
CIVIL APPLICATION CAO NO.1612/2011 IN M.C.A. 20192/2011 IN F.A. 411/2002 [JAIGOPAL YADAO RUKHMODE & ORS ..VS.. TALARAM BALIRAM HUME]
CIVIL APPLICATION CAO NO.1613/2011 IN M.C.A. 19886/2011 IN F.A. 412/2002 [JAIGOPAL YADAO RUKHMODE & ORS ..VS.. TALARAM BALIRAM HUME]
CIVIL APPLICATION CAO NO.1614/2011 IN M.C.A. 20040/2011 IN F.A. 414/2002 [JAIGOPAL YADAO RUKHMODE & ORS ..VS.. TALARAM BALIRAM HUME]
CIVIL APPLICATION CAO NO.1615/2011 IN M.C.A. 20036/2011 IN F.A. 416/2002 [JAIGOPAL YADAO RUKHMODE & ORS ..VS.. TALARAM BALIRAM HUME]
CIVIL APPLICATION CAO NO.1616/2011 IN M.C.A. 20188/2011 IN F.A. 418/2002 [JAIGOPAL YADAO RUKHMODE & ORS ..VS..GOVIND KRISHNA BRAHMANKAR]
CIVIL APPLICATION CAO NO.1617/2011 IN M.C.A. 20101/2011 IN F.A. 417/2002 [JAIGOPAL YADAO RUKHMODE & ORS ..VS.. GOVIND KRISHNA BRAHMANKAR]
CIVIL APPLICATION CAO NO.1618/2011 IN M.C.A. 20068/2011 IN F.A. 415/2002 [JAIGOPAL YADAO RUKHMODE & ORS ..VS.. TALARAM BALIRAM HUME]
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.
Court’s or Judge’s orders
Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, advocate for applicant Mr. A.P. Thakre, advocate for respondent
CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J . DATED : 7.5.2012.
All these applications are for condonation of delay, caused in filing an application for restoration of appeal dismissed
2
070512cao1613.11 .odt
on 2.7.2004 for non-removal of office objections.
It is stated that delay caused in moving these applications is of 7 years and 99 days.
All these appeals were filed in 2002. They were listed before the Court and in that this court directed to issue notice before admission and also granted interim stay. Since notices were not served, appeals were listed with objections before the Registrar (Judicial) and thereafter before this court. This court on 18.6.2003 passed a conditional order directing the appellant to remove office objections within two weeks. It was also directed that in the event of non-removal of office objections, the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the court. Since within two weeks, office objections were not removed, the order of dismissal became final.
Appellant had engaged Mr. K.G. Pande, to represent them. Unfortunately, he died in the year 2005. In that view of the matter, the order of dismissal went unnoticed. The appellants also did not know about the death of their counsel. It is averred that in the second week of August, 2011, the applicant no.1/ appellant no.1 had been to Nagpur and enquired about the fate of the appeals. At that juncture only he learnt about the death of his counsel. This made him to enquire about the pendency of the appeals.
3
070512cao1613.11 .odt
The reasons sited by the applicants/ appellants appear to be probable, although Mr. Thakre contended that reasons are artificial and huge delay caused in getting the appeal restored, may not be condoned. Since the cause of delay is stated to be due to death of counsel engaged by the appellant, the delay although it is prolonged, is condoned.
Applications are allowed in the above terms.
M.C.A. Stamp No. 19198/2011, 20192/2011, 19886/2011, 20040/2011, 20036/2011, 20188/2011, 20101/2011 & 20068/2011
For the reasons stated in the applications, the applications
are allowed and the first appeals are restored to file.
First appeals be listed for admission.
Mr. A.P. Thakre, undertakes to appear for the sole
respondent in all these appeals.
SMP.
JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing civil applications for condonation of delay for restoration of appeals, caused by the death of the appellant's counsel and subsequent unawareness, constitutes sufficient ju
JAIGOPAL YADAO RUKHMODE & ORS
TALARAM BALIRAM HUME
GOVIND KRISHNA BRAHMANKAR
M.N. GILANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
