Disposed

Kalyan Kashinath Naikwadi, L.Rs. Vikas and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC23 Oct 2013CA/5520/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Aurangabad considered an application to condone an 824-day delay in restoring a civil appeal. The appellant's death (karta of family) and illness were deemed sufficient explanation for condoning the delay and restoring the appeal to the file.

What did the court decide?

Condoned the delay of 824 days and restored the Appeal from Order to its file.

Kalyan Kashinath Naikwadi, L.Rs. Vikas and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

(1)

¶2

ca5520-13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5520 OF 2013 IN

¶5

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 49 OF 2007

¶6

(Kalyan s/o Kashinath Naikwad, Since deceased by
L.Rs. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others)

¶7

.....

¶8

Mr. Avishkar S. Shelke, advocate for the applicant.
Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. B.R. Sable, advocate for respondent No. 3.

¶9

.....

¶10

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 23rd October, 2013

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

1.Heard both sides.

¶13

2.Delay of 824 days caused in filing Civil

¶14

Application for restoration of Appeal from Order, is
sought to be condoned by the legal representatives of

¶15

one of the original appellants i.e. deceased Kalyan,

¶16

on the ground that said deceased Kalyan being the
karta of the family was looking after the litigation.

¶17

3.It is submitted by the applicants that when

¶18

the Appeal from Order was dismissed in default,

¶19

ca5520-13

¶20

during that period, said Kalyan was seriously ill and
therefore, the rest of the appellants were not aware
of filing of the Appeal from Order. Even the
application for bringing the legal representatives on
record remained to be filed. For all these reasons,
when the rest of the appellants approached their
advocate alongwith the death certificate of deceased
Kalyan, the learned counsel expressed his inability

¶21

to conduct the matter and therefore, the delay has
occurred.

¶22

4.Learned counsel for the respondents

¶23

submitted that the other appellants were already on
record. The delay is of 824 days, which is not
satisfactorily explained and hence, the application
be dismissed.

¶24

5.Taking into consideration that the original
appellant No. 1 Kalyan, the eldest person in the
family has died during the intervening period, in my
view, sufficient explanation is made out for
condonation of delay. In the circumstances, the
delay is condoned and for the same reasons as are
stated in the application, the Appeal from Order is

¶25

ca5520-13

¶26

(3)

¶27

restored to its file. The present application is

¶28

accordingly disposed of.

¶29

6.Place the matter i.e. Appeal from Order and
the other pending Civil Applications for hearing on
18th November, 2013.

¶30

[ M.T. JOSHI ]

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

npj/ca5520-13

Kalyan Kashinath Naikwadi, L.Rs. Vikas and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalyan Kashinath Naikwadi, L.Rs. Vikas and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Kashinathsingh Gangusingh Rawat Vs Bhaskar Dattatraya Kottawar

Bansidhar Laxminaryan Mistry ( Jangid ) Vs Fulchand Laxminaryan Jangid and Ors.

Sameeroddin Ajimoddin Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohd Abdul Khaliq Mohd Abdul Wahadb and Ors. Vs Mohd Amjadoddin Inayattur Rehman Khatib and Ors.

Ashok Nagnath Gulve Vs S.S.Kshatriya and Others

Rajendra Kisanrao Shinde Vs Bhanudas H. Palve and Another