Allowed

R. Govindraj Naidu v. R. Krishna Naidu

Bombay HC3 Sept 2013CST/26/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a chamber summons proceeding, the caveator sought condonation of a 132-day delay in filing an affidavit in support of a caveat, explaining the delay due to awaiting certified copies of the petition. The court found the explanation satisfactory and accepted the plea.

What did the court decide?

The chamber summons made absolute; affidavit accepted to convert petition into suit; no order as to costs.

R. Govindraj Naidu Vs R. Krishna Naidu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

.. 1 .. 19-CST-26/12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY .

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.26 OF 2012 IN PETITION NO.837 OF 2003

¶4

Smt. T.K. Pappama Naidu … Deceased. R. Govindraj Naidu ... Petitioner R. Krishna Naidu … Caveator

¶5

Mr Abhijit Shinde for Applicant/Caveator.

¶6

Ms Madhuri Gaikwad i/b P.G.Lad for petitioner.

¶7

CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 3, 2013.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

By this chamber summons, caveator seeks condotion of delay of 132 days in filing affidavit in support of caveat.

¶10

No affidavit in reply has been filed by the petitioner. On perusal of affidavit in support of chamber summons, it appears that the caveator was served with citation on 12^th September 2011. Caveator filed caveat on 26^th September 2011 within the time specified under the High Court Rules for filing caveat. Caveator requested the petitioner's Advocate to furnish copy of the petition vide letter dated 1^st October 2011. On 15^th November 2011, petitioner furnished incomplete copy of the petition upon the caveator. On 20^th November 2011, caveator filed affidavit in support of caveat to the

1/2

Asmita

.. 2 .. 19-CST-26/12

petition based on incomplete copy of the petition.

¶15

It is the case of the caveator that caveator had also applied for certified copy to the Prothonotary & Senior Master on 28^th November 2011. It is stated, in these circumstances, caveator could not file affidavit in support of caveat within time and thus, delay of 132 days in filing affidavit in support of caveat be condoned.

¶16

It is not in dispute that copy of the petition was furnished by the petitioner on 14^th November 2011. It is not in dispute that caveat was already filed within the time prescribed under High Court Rules. On perusal of affidavit in support of chamber summons, I am satisfied that delay in filing affidavit in support of caveat has been satisfactorily explained. No affidavit in reply has been filed by the petitioner though served well in advance.

¶17

Chamber summons is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). Prothonotary & Senior Master is directed to accept affidavit in support of caveat and to convert the petition into suit. No order as to costs.

¶18

( R.D.DHANUKA, J.)

¶19

2/2

¶20

Asmita

R. Govindraj Naidu v. R. Krishna Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Govindraj Naidu v. R. Krishna Naidu

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

Ujjwala Mhatre, C.A. of Christopher Fernandes Vs Mrs.Phylis Fernandes of Mumbai

Gobind Khanchand Jhangiani Vs Maya Arjun Thadani Alias Maya Shahaney (App/Cave)

Jehangir Tehmas Patel and Anr. Vs Neelam Devkrishanan

Dilip Gulabchand Domadia Vs Mahesh Gulabchand Domadia Alias Mahesh G. Domadia

Sardar Bhupindersingh Jaimalsingh Anand Vs Mr. Narinderpal Singh Anand(Caveator)

Sardar Bhupindersingh Jaimalsingh Anand Vs Mrs.Rawel Kaur Anand(Caveator)