Dismissed

Kangji Keru Lahane v. Balu Gopinath Layre

Bombay HC28 Jan 2013CAS/1434/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed several civil applications seeking condonation of delay for filing a Second Appeal in a partition suit. The delay exceeded seven years, and the explanation failed to inspire confidence as the applicants could not demonstrate why they neglected a matter involving all co-appellants.

What did the court decide?

Civil applications dismissed with no order as to costs; papers consigned to the record department.

Kangji Keru Lahane Vs Balu Gopinath Layre — Partition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1434-12-ca-common=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1434 OF 2012

¶4

IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO.4739 OF 2012 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1435 OF 2012 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 959 OF 2012 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 958 OF 2012 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO. 4739 OF 2012

¶5

Kangji Keru Lahane & Ors.

¶6

.. Applicants

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Balu Gopinath Layre & Ors. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Nilesh Wable i/b Umesh R. Mankapure for the applicants Mr. M.M. Sathaye for the respondents

¶10

CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 28^th JANUARY, 2013

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard learned advocates on both sides.

¶13

The applicants are the persons who have filed the aforesaid Second Appeal in February, 2012. The applicants were aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the District Court

¶14

1 of 4

¶15

U.S.Jagtap

¶16

1434-12-ca-common=.doc

¶17

in Civil Appeal No.48 of 1999 on 7^th February, 2003. The applicants applied for certified copy in February, 2011. The precise date is not mentioned. It is also not mentioned that when the certified copy was received and what steps have been taken to attend to the matter thereafter. In the body of the Civil Application at paragraph 4, it is stated that the proceedings were attended to by one Mr. Raju N. Lahane, who was appellant no.6 in the District Court. Said Raju has died in the year 2007. According to the applicants, they totally relied upon said Raju and did not attend to the matter as regards filing of the Second Appeal.

¶18

It is required to be noted that the Regular Civil Suit was filed by

¶19

the present appellants for partition and that suit was dismissed. There are in all 13 persons who were shown as plaintiffs. The appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was also by 13 persons. This will mean that all 13 persons are suppose to attend to the matter. This being a suit for partition,

¶20

it will have to be taken that each of them was interested in

¶21

2 of 4

¶22

U.S.Jagtap

¶23

1434-12-ca-common=.doc

¶24

getting share in the property. In such a situation, the

¶25

responsibility was of all the appellants.

¶26

In any case, the averments set out in paragraph 4 of the Civil Application do not inspire confidence of this Court and the delay is not properly explained, which is for a period of more

¶27

than 7 years.

¶28

In my view, no case is made out for condonation of delay. Hence, this Civil Application is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶29

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1435 OF 2012

¶30

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 959 OF 2012

¶31

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 958 OF 2012 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO. 4739 OF 2012

¶32

. The above three Civil Applications arise out of filing of Second Appeal (St) No.4739 of 2012. Delay in filing the aforesaid send appeal is not condoned.

¶33

3 of 4

¶34

U.S.Jagtap

¶35

1434-12-ca-common=.doc

¶36

Hence, there is no need to attend these three civil applications.

¶37

They stand dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶38

Papers pertaining to all the Civil Applications and the Second Appeal (St.) No.4739 of 2012 be consigned to the record department.

¶39

[R.Y.GANOO, J.]

¶40

4 of 4

¶41

U.S.Jagtap

Kangji Keru Lahane v. Balu Gopinath Layre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kangji Keru Lahane v. Balu Gopinath Layre

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

Shri Balkrishna Ramchandra Lingam and Others Vs Shri Balwant Dada Yadav @ Parit and Others

1SHAIKH Gattehmohammad Amir,Deced.Hisl.R'S 1A. Shaikh Nisar Fattehmohammad Vs 1. Shri Shaikh Gayas Usman and Ors.

Shri Kailas Baban Kodre Vs Shri Hirabhau Gopala Kodre Deceased Thr Lr Sarubai Hirabhau Kodre and Ors.

Smt. Jayanti Pandurang Mali Vs Smt. Indira Raje D.Mukane

Krishnadeo Shripati Patil Vs Vitthal Shripati Patil

Gopal Ganapati Mali Vs Smt. Ramabai Mahadev Todkar