Dismissed

Smt. Maltiben Mahendrakumar Shah and Ors. v. Tolaram Lachhiram Chudiwala and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Mar 2013CAW/188/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under the ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay considered a request for condonation of delay and to recall an order allowing impleadment. The court dismissed the appeal, noting the applicants were served and chose to be absent. It held no justification existed for interference after considering the overall circumstances.

What did the court decide?

The civil application seeking condonation of delay and recall of the order dated 13th September, 2012 was rejected.

Smt. Maltiben Mahendrakumar Shah and Ors. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

2-CAW-188-13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.188 OF 2013

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.7429 OF 2012

¶7

Smt. Maltiben M. Shah and Ors.

¶8

....Applicants.

¶9

Versus

¶10

Tolaram L. Chudiwala and Ors. ...Respondents.

¶11

Ms. Nisha Parmar with Ms. Priyal Chheda, advocates for the applicants (Original Respondent Nos.3 to 6).

¶12

Mr. Sharan Jagtiani with Mr. Mohit Sahi i/by M/s Mehta and Girdharlal, advocates for the Respondents (Original Petitioners).

¶13

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.

¶14

DATED : March 25, 2013.

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶17

2 By prayer clause (a), applicants are seeking condonation of delay of 22 days occurred in taking out this application.

¶18

By prayer clause (b), applicants seek to recall the order dated 13^th September, 2012 passed in the above writ petition.

Shivgan

2-CAW-188-13

3 By the said order, writ petition is allowed and the respondents/original petitioners were permitted to implead respondent nos.3 to 6 as party defendants in the suit. The learned counsel for the applicants makes a grievance that this order was passed without hearing them. After perusal of record of the writ petition, it is clear that the present applicants were served with notice of the above writ petition. However, they chose to remain absent. The learned counsel also does not dispute that applicants were served with notice of writ petition. In these circumstances, applicants can not make capital of the fact that the writ petition was disposed of in their absence.

¶23

4 On merits also, I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Applicants had given concession for their impleadment as defendants in the suit before the trial Court. Despite that, the trial Court rejected respondents/petitioners' application. There was some delay on part of respondents in taking out application in the trial Court. However, I find that the satisfactory explanation is given in that regard.

¶24

5 Taking overall circumstances into consideration, I find no justification to interfere with this civil application. Application is accordingly rejected.

¶25

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶26

Shivgan

Smt. Maltiben Mahendrakumar Shah and Ors. v. Tolaram Lachhiram Chudiwala and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Maltiben Mahendrakumar Shah and Ors. v. Tolaram Lachhiram Chudiwala 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

Yasham Importers and Exporters Private Limited Vs

Yasham Bio-Science Private Limited Vs

Yasham Chemphar Private Limited Vs

Smt. Maltiben Mahendrakumar Shah and Ors. Vs Tolaram Lachhiram Chudiwala and Ors.

Prasad T. Lad Vs Sabai Mura Rabari and 2 Ors.

Ivan Menezes Vs M/S. Oberoi Hotel