Partly allowed

Sarojini Rajendra More v. Kanchankumar Vilas Kasture Thr Gpa Shashikalabai Vilasrao Kasture and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Jan 2012WP/883/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order dismissing an appeal due to late deposit of court fees. Noting the delay was not intentional and bonafides were shown, it extended the time to deposit costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; time to deposit costs extended to 15/12/2011 subject to additional fee of Rs. 1,500/-.

Sarojini Rajendra More Vs Kanchankumar Vilas Kasture… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 W.P. 883.2012 - [ J ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 883 OF 2012

¶4

Sarojini W/o Rajednra More Age : 46 Yrs., Occ. Agril. & Household, R/o : Maharashtra Housing Society, Barshi Road, Latur. .... PETITIONER

¶5

V E R S U S

¶6

Kanchankumar S/o Vilas Kasture Age : 46 Yrs., Occ. Business, R/o : aKasture Niwas, Old Ausa Road, Latur Tq. & Dist. Latur General Power of Attorney of Sau. Shashikalabai W/o Vilasrao Kasture, Age : 70 Yrs., R/o : Kasture Niwas, Old Ausa Road, Latur Tq. & Dist. Latur.

¶7

Sumanbai W/o Sudhakar Madne Age : 59 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : Rajewadi, Tq. Penapur, Dist. Latur. .... RESPONDENTS

¶8

2 W.P. 883.2012 - [ J ]

¶9

Mr. Sandeep S.Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K.Tambe, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr. P.R.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for Resp. No. 1.

¶10

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 25/01/2012.

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶12

At the out set, Mr. Sandeep S. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent no. 2 is a formal party and seeks leave to delete respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 stands deleted at the risk of the petitioner.

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

¶14

the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶15

This Court vide Order dated 14/11/2011 in W.P. 6736 of 2011 had directed the Appeal to be registered if the cost of Rs. 7,000/- i.e. Rs. 2,000/- as directed by the District Court and Rs. 5,000/- the additional cost as directed by this Court is deposited within the period of three ( 3 ) weeks from the date of order i.e. 05/12/2011. The cost was also accepted by the Court on 15/12/2011. Thereafter, the present respondent filed an

¶16

3 W.P. 883.2012 - [ J ]

¶17

application for dismissal of Appeal on the ground that the cost is not deposited within the stipulated period. The said application is allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶18

Mr. Katneshwarkar, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 opposes the petition and submits that all along the petitioner is negligent. The order passed by this Court was conditional order and as the amount was not deposited by 05/12/2011, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to accept the amount of cost after the stipulated date. The Court has properly passed the order.

¶19

No doubt, as per the order passed by this Court, the petitioner was supposed to deposit the cost by 05/12/2011. However, the same has been deposited on 15/12/2011. The reason put-forth by the petitioner that there was some mistake in calculating the days, can not be said to intentional. The cost is deposited on 15/12/2011. There is not much delay in depositing the cost also.

¶20

The bonafides are shown by the petitioners by depositing the cost. In view of that, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The time to deposit the cost as directed by this Court in W.P. No. 6736 of 2011 vide Order dated 14/11/2011 would be deemed to be extended by this

¶21

4 W.P. 883.2012 - [ J ]

¶22

Court till 15/12/2011 on payment of additional cost of Rs. 1500/-

¶23

[ Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only ] within the period of three

¶24

( 3 ) weeks from today. The authenticated copy be given.

¶25

Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶26

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ]

¶27

KNP/W.P. 883.2012 - [ J ]

Sarojini Rajendra More v. Kanchankumar Vilas Kasture Thr Gpa Shashikalabai Vilasrao Kasture and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarojini Rajendra More v. Kanchankumar Vilas Kasture Thr Gpa Shashikalabai Vilasrao Kasture and Anr.

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

Dinkar Balkrishna Kedari Vs Sharad Dattatray Saraf and Anr.

Mandakini Pralhad Panhale Vs Subhash Pandurang Dahihande and Ors.

Bhikamchand Krishnachand Depura and Ors. Vs Jalgaon City Municipal Corp. Thr. Its Commissioner

Trimbak Vyankatrao Patil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dinkarrao Appasaheb Deshmukh Vs Abasaheb Sampat Chalak and Ors.

Premraj Hari Mule Vs Tahsildar Jamner Dist Jalgaon and Ors.