Ajinkya Balu Hande v. Tukaram Balu Hande and Ors. (Caveators)
Case brief
What is this about?
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY T & I. J.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
kvm
1/2
24-CST7.13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
T & I. J.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 7 OF 2013
IN PETITION NO. 54 OF 2012
Balu Ahilaji Hande ..... Deceased Tukaram Balu Hande ..... Applicant (Org.Caveator No.1) IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Ajinkya Balu Hande ..... Petitioner VERSUS Tukaram Balu Hande & Ors. ..... Caveators
R.Yadav, i/b. Mr.Rakesh Agarwal for the Petitioner.
Mr.Ajay Basutkar for the Caveator.
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATED : 19th AUGUST, 2013
P.C.
Caveator has filed this Chamber Summons for seeking condonation of delay
of 37 days in filing affidavit in support of the caveat. Caveat was already filed on 4th December, 2012 within the time prescribed. It is the case of the caveator that inspite of the letter of advocate of the caveator requesting for furnishing copy of the petition, the petitioner's advocate did not serve copy of the petition. Caveator
therefore applied for inspection of the petition before the Prothonotary & Senior
kvm
2/2
24-CST7.13
Master and collected the information required for filing affidavit in support of the caveat and gave instructions to their advocate for filing affidavit in support of the caveat. There is no affidavit in reply filed by the petitioner.
first witness alongwith the documents within four weeks from today and serve copy thereof on the caveator's advocate.
such documents within two weeks from the date of the service. Place the matter on board for deciding admissibility of the documents on 8th October, 2013 .
costs.
[R.D. DHANUKA, J.]
Ajinkya Balu Hande
Tukaram Balu Hande
R.D. Dhanuka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court