Partly allowed

Madhav Yadavrao Dhotre v. Saraswatibai Babulal Pandit and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Oct 2013APPLN/2048/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge set aside an order dismissing Criminal Revision Application No.88 of 2010 solely against Respondent No.3 due to defective address. The application against Respondent No.3 was restored and remitted for admission, while the current application was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The dismissal of the revision only against Respondent No.3 is set aside. The revision against Respondent No.3 is restored and listed for admission on 21.10.2013. Fresh notice issued.

Madhav Yadavrao Dhotre Vs Saraswatibai Babulal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

25 appln.2048.12

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶5

APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2048 OF 2012

¶7

IN REVN/88/2010 WITH REVN/88/2010

¶8

MADHAV YADAVRAO DHOTRE

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

SARASWATIBAI BABULAL PANDIT AND OTHERS

¶11

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

¶12

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Milind Patil.

¶13

Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. D.R.Bhadekar, Advocate h/f Mr. A.M.Dabir.

¶14

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 03rd October, 2013.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

. Heard.

¶17

2 By an order dated 23rd November, 2010, Criminal Revision Application No.88 of 2010 came to be dismissed only against the Respondent No.3 therein. The said revision application is very much alive and pending with respect to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein.

¶18

3 The revision as aforesaid, came to be dismissed as Against Respondent No.3 as the Applicant had failed to give proper address of the Respondent No.3.

¶19

¶20

25 appln.2048.12

¶21

4 The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the address of the Respondent No.3, as given in the cause title of the revision application is proper, and till today, the Respondent No.3 serves at that address and he is very much available there.

¶22

5 Any way, since the revision against other Respondents is pending and since the questions requiring determination, are the same, there is no point in keeping the order of dismissing the revision application only against the Respondent No.3, alive.

¶23

6 In the circumstances, the order of dismissal of the revision application as against the Respondent No.3 is set aside.

¶24

7 The revision application, so far it relates to the Respondent No.3 shall be restored. The same be listed on board for admission on 21st October, 2013.

¶25

8 Issue fresh notice to Respondent No.3, returnable on 21st October, 2013.

¶26

9 Criminal Application No.2048 of 2012 is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶27

[ ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. ]

¶28

ndm

Madhav Yadavrao Dhotre v. Saraswatibai Babulal Pandit and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhav Yadavrao Dhotre v. Saraswatibai Babulal Pandit and Ors.

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

Laxman Jagannath Munde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Aditya Motors, Sonalika Tractors Thr. Its Partners Vs Shaikh Riyaz Shaikh Badshah

Vitthal Dagadu Kshirsagar Vs Mangal Vitthal Kshirsagar and Anr.

Satyabhamabai Laxman Dharme Vs Ramhari Sitaram Therbele and Anr.

Sayyed Fataulla Hashmi Ahmadulla Hashmi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maruti Jagannath Karad Vs the State of Mah and Anr.