Allowed

Bhagwat Sarangdhar Sadaphal v. Anusayabai Tatyaba Palande and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jan 2013CA/475/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad condensed the delay in filing a review petition in Second Appeal No. 261 of 2000, allowing the Civil Application on the grounds of the applicant's lack of awareness about prior proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the review petition was condoned, and the Civil Application was allowed.

Bhagwat Sarangdhar Sadaphal Vs Anusayabai… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 C.A. 475. 2013 in S.A. 261.2000

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2013 IN

¶5

REVIEW APPLICATION STP. NO. 29 OF 2013

¶6

IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 261 OF 2000

¶7

Bhagwat Sarangdhar Sadaphal V/s Smt. Anusayabai Tatyaba Palande & Ors.

¶8

Office Notes,Office	Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of
Coram,appearances,	................................
Court's orders or	CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.
directions and
Registrar's orders	DATE : 16/01/2013.

¶9

Mr. P.B.Vikhe Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. N.K.Kakade, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. V.D.Hon, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 4,6,7 & 8.

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition.

¶12

Mr. Vikhe Patil, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not a party to the original

¶13

2 C.A. 475. 2013 in S.A. 261.2000

¶14

proceedings. The applicant was not aware about the proceedings in the High Court. He came to know about the compromise decree when his name was deleted from the 7/12 extract. Thereafter, the applicant collected all the documents. Time was lost in that. According to the learned counsel, the delay caused is not intentional one, but due to aforesaid reasons.

¶15

Mr. Kakade, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 opposes the application. The learned counsel submits that the applicant has no right to file review petition. The applicant is purchaser pendente-lite and do not have any right to challenge the said decree.

¶16

It is trite that the merits of the review petition can not be considered at the time of considering the application for condonation of delay.

¶17

The applicant has stated that the applicant was not party to the proceeding and got the knowledge only when his name was deleted from 7/12 extract. There is no reason to disbelieve the same.

¶18

In view of the above, the delay caused in filing the review petition is condoned.

¶19

3 C.A. 475. 2013 in S.A. 261.2000

¶20

The Civil Application is allowed. S.O. to 31/01/2013.

¶21

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶22

KNP/C.A. 475. 2013 in S.A. 261.2000

Bhagwat Sarangdhar Sadaphal v. Anusayabai Tatyaba Palande and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwat Sarangdhar Sadaphal v. Anusayabai Tatyaba Palande 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

Madhukar Baburao Tant Vs Rajabahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd.Ahmednagar

Hanumant Buasaheb Shinde Vs Dilip Nanasaheb Shinde and Ors.

Bhim Bhojilal Choudhary. Vs Babulal Ghashiram Yadav and Others.

Shankarrao Kisan Chinchane Vs Dargah Hajrat Syed Shah Hamiduddin Samani Masjid and Graveyard, Parbhani and Ors.

Shobha Parasram Wale Vs the Addl. Dist. Collector, Ahmedngar and Ors.

Savitabai Sanjay Chhajed Vs Sandeep Bhausaheb Pathak and Ors.