Dismissed

Chandulal Motilal Talera and Ors. v. Smt,. Gajarabai Sitaram Khule ( Since Deced. Thro. Legal Heirs ) 1A) Vithal Sitaram Khule and Ors.

Bombay HC2 May 2013CAO/69/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a review application. The applicants sought condonation of delay and a review based on a new affidavit claiming the first appeal judgment was unduly delayed, but the court found the applicants had sufficient opportunity to raise this issue earlier. Also attempted a condonation of delay for a review petition in an earlier order.

What did the court decide?

Review application dismissed holding no error apparent on record; delay of 68 days in a related application condoned in a separate order.

Chandulal Motilal Talera and Ors. Vs Smt,. Gajarabai Sitaram Khule… — Partition | Bombay HC (2013)

CAS69.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.69 OF 2013

¶7

¶8

SECOND APPEAL NO.86 OF 2011

¶9

Shri Chandulal Motilal Talera & Ors. )....Applicants V/s.

¶10

Smt.Gajarabai S. Khule (deceased) through LRs Vithal S.Khule & Ors.

¶11

) )....Respondents

¶12

Mr.M.S.Karnik for the applicants. Mr.R.P.Kadam for the respondent nos.1A to 1D.

¶13

CORAM : MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J (IN CHAMBER)

¶14

DATE : 2.5.2013

¶15

PC :-

¶16

1 Application is moved for condonation of delay of 68 days

¶17

for filing Review Petition. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the document on which the applicant is relying in review, was not in hand therefore, the review petition could not be filed within limitation.

¶18

2 Considering these submissions, delay is condoned. Application is allowed.

(Judge)

CAS69.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶23

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶24

REVIEW APPLICATION (ST) NO.4690 OF 2013

¶25

¶26

SECOND APPEAL NO.86 OF 2011

¶27

Shri Chandulal Motilal Talera & Ors. )....Applicants V/s. Smt.Gajarabai S. Khule (deceased) ) through LRs Vithal S.Khule & Ors. )....Respondents

¶28

Mr.M.S.Karnik for the applicants. Mr.R.P.Kadam for the respondent nos.1A to 1D.

¶29

CORAM : MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J (IN CHAMBER)

¶30

DATE : 2.5.2013

¶31

PC :-

¶32

1 Registry is directed to register the Review application as the delay of 68 days is condoned.

¶33

2 Applicants are the original defendant nos.3 to 8. Respondent nos.1 & 2 have filed a suit for partition and declaration. The said suit was dismissed against which appeal was preferred by the respondents and the said appeal was allowed by the District Judge, Pune by a judgment and order dated 10.10.2010. The present applicants challenged the said judgment in Second Appeal

¶34

3 CAS69.13

¶35

and the said Appeal was dismissed by this Court by order dated 30.10.2012 at the stage of admission as no substantial question of law was found.

¶36

3 This review application is preferred by the applicants mainly on the ground that the affidavit of the Advocate who appeared for the applicants before the First Appeal Court stating gross delay in declaring judgment; is now available to the applicants hence this Review Application. Learned Counsel Mr.Karnik submits that though at the stage of hearing of Second Appeal, the applicants have specifically raised the point that though First Appeal was heard in September-2008, the first appellate court did not deliver the judgment nearly for 1 & ½ years therefore, there is a mis-carriage of justice and has caused a great illegality. The learned Counsel submits that Shri Chandrashekhar D.Dharne the Advocate who had represented the applicants in the First Appeal has sworn affidavit dated 3.12.2012 and the same is now produced in the Review Petition. He relies on the relevant paragraphs in the affidavit and submits that considering this affidavit, as the judgment of the First Appeal was not delivered within 60 days, the order in the Second Appeal be reviewed.

¶37

4 The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the

¶38

4 CAS69.13

¶39

copy of the roznama of the first appeal court disclosing that appeal was heard and decided on merit was earlier filed before this Court and sufficient time was given to the applicants to produce impugned affidavit.

¶40

5 Perused the affidavit of Advocate Chandrashekhar D.Dharne. He has stated on oath that the arguments on merit were heard in September-2008 and the judgment was delivered in October-2010. The sufficient time was given to the applicants to file this affidavit if they wanted to at the time of hearing of the Second Appeal. The matter was adjourned on several dates for the same reason however, no affidavit was put forward by the applicants though after giving the fair and sufficient opportunity. The matter was finally decided on merits. Therefore, it cannot be said as error apparent on the face of record. Hence, Review Application is dismissed.

¶41

(JUDGE)

¶42

5 CAS69.13

Chandulal Motilal Talera and Ors. v. Smt,. Gajarabai Sitaram Khule ( Since Deced. Thro. Legal Heirs ) 1A) Vithal Sitaram Khule and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandulal Motilal Talera and Ors. v. Smt,. Gajarabai Sitaram Khule ( Since Deced. Thro. Legal Heirs ) 1A) Vithal Sitaram Khule 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

Smt.Papabai Hiraman Jadhav and Others Vs 1) Kashibai Govind Jadhav ( Since Deced. Thro. Her L. H. ) 1A) Ravindra Govind Jadhav

1) Narayan Bhau Wagh and Ors. Vs 1) Laxman Shankar Wagh @ Mali and Ors.

1) Narayan Bhau Wagh and Ors. Vs 1) Laxman Shankar Wagh @ Mali and Ors.

Chimbusco Pan National Petro Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs M v Grandsoar (Imo No. 9650547) and 2 Ors.

Deepak Bhimrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Bhimrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra