The High Court conversan LPA was restored and filed. The compromise allowed by the parties to settle the dispute. The judgment noted by the Single Judge was set aside.
Restoration of LPA with condonation of delay; quashing and setting aside of the Single Judge's judgment; permission to bring legal heirs on record.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL STAMP NO. 36675 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 690 OF 1993
with
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3861 OF 2013 IN R.C. 858 OF 2011 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7060 OF 2012 IN CA.17690 OF 2010 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17690 OF 2010 IN LPA ST. NO. 36675 OF 2010
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17692 OF 2010 IN LPA ST.NO. 36675 OF 2010
Anand s/o. Krishna Mahakal and others.
.. APPELLANT/S
VERSUS
Kisan s/o. Sayaji Shelke and another.
.. RESPONDENT/S
Mr.P.V. Mandlik, Senior Advocate h/f. Mr. A.S. Gandhi, Advocate , Advocate for appellants.
Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate for respondents.
CORAM :- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. DATE :- 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2013.
ORDER :-
1] By civil application No.7060 of 2013, the original appellants are seeking restoration of the LPA Stamp No. 36675/2010, which came to be dismissed for non compliance of the court order dated 28.3.2011. The application is delayed by 378 days and hence, there is also a prayer for condonation of delay.
2
2] It appears that the dispute between the landlord and tenant has been amicably settled. C.A. No. 3861 of 2013, has been filed for taking cognizance of that compromise. Parties are jointly seeking recording of compromise in LPA with adequate observations about the impugned judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 690 of 1993. In view of this development, delay is condoned and LPA Stamp No. 36675 of 2010 is restored back to file.
3] Civil application No. 2596 of 2013, is for seeking leave to bring on record legal heirs of deceased respondent No.2. There is also delay of 352 days in making the request. For the reasons recorded above, the application is allowed and legal heirs are permitted to come on record in LPA Stamp No. 36675 of 2010.
4] Civil application No. 17690 of 2010 is for condonation of delay of 89 days caused in filing the LPA.
For the reasons recorded above, the delay is condoned. Office to register the LPA.
5] Civil Application No.17692 of 2010 is concerned, as the LPA is being finally disposed of, the said application is rendered infructuous and disposed of accordingly.
6] So far as LPA Stamp No. 36665 of 2010 is concerned, the office is already directed to register this LPA.
Heard Advocate Mandlik senior Advocate for the appellants with Shri Gandhi, Advocate.
3
Respondent No.2 Madhukar has expired and his legal heirs are already permitted to be brought on record by a separate order. However, parties state that Madhukar was the earlier land owner, who, thereafter has transferred the property to the present appellants. In view of this joint statement and compromise arrived at, notice to legal heirs dispensed with.
7] We have perused Civil application No,. 3861 of 2012, filed jointly by appellants and respondent No.1. It is signed by the appellants as also by respondent No.1 and their respective counsel. It is supported by a separate affidavit of respondent No.1 and all appellants.
8] The parties are not present before the court today. However, respective counsel jointly state that in terms of the compromise, judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 690 of 1993 should be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, In terms of the conditions of the compromise as incorporated in Civil Application No. 3861 of 2013, we quash and set aside the judgment delivered by learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 690 of 1993 dated 11.8.2010. It is made clear that the compromise shall not affect the rights, if any, in favour of the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.2.
9] Accordingly, LPA is partly allowed and disposed of. All civil applications also stand disposed of, as stated in earlier paragraph Nos. 1 to 5 of this order.
[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,J] [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI,J]
grt/-.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal can be condoned upon the basis of a compro
Whether leave to bring legal heirs on record can be granted despite delay.
Whether the judgment of the Single Judge should be quashed in light of the settlement between pa.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anand s/o. Krishna Mahakal and others
Kisan s/o. Sayaji Shelke
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
