Allowed

Vimal Vijay Shinde @ Vimal Bhagwan Mhatre v. Chandrakant Bhagwan Mhatre (Caveator)

Bombay HC16 Sept 2013CST/49/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay condoned a 30-day delay in filing the affidavit in support of a chamber summons in a testamentary dispute, satisfied by the caveator's explanation, and directed acceptance of documents and conversion of the petition into a suit.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 30 days; chamber summons made absolute; caveat accepted and converted into suit.

Vimal Vijay Shinde @ Vimal Bhagwan Mhatre Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

26-CST-49.2013.sxw

.. 1 ..

hvn

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

¶5

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 49 OF 2013 IN

¶6

PETITION NO. 230 OF 2012

¶7

Smt. Vimal Vijay Shinde … Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Chandrakant Bhagwan Mhatre

¶10

… Caveator

¶11

Mr. Kunal Bhange for the applicant.

¶12

Mr. Shyam Rajbhar for respondent/plaintiff.

¶13

CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 16, 2013.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

By this Chamber summons, applicant seeks condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the affidavit in support of chamber summons. It is the case of the caveator that the copy of the citation was served on 10^th May, 2013. On service of citation, caveator approached the petitioner for settlement and told her about the Will executed by the deceased. But the petitioner was not ready and willing to settle the matter. It is the case of the caveator that after refusal of the settlement, the caveator approached the lawyer and informed him the details of the property who advised the caveator to file chamber summons in view of the delay in filing the caveat along with affidavit in

¶16

.. 2 .. 26-CST-49.2013.sxw

¶17

support. Accordingly, Caveator filed this chamber summons. Learned counsel for the caveator submits that the delay of thirty days in filing affidavit in support is unintentional and subsequently due to the ill health of the caveator, the same could not be filed within 14 days of service of citation.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on the other hand submits that the delay has not been explained properly in the affidavit in support of the chamber summons. On perusal of the affidavit in support of the chamber summons, I am satisfied that the delay in filing caveat as well as affidavit in support has been sufficiently explained and delay accordingly deserves to be condoned. For reasons recorded in affidavit in support, Chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Office is directed to accept the caveat and affidavit in support on record and convert the Testamentary Petition into suit. There shall be no order as to costs.

Vimal Vijay Shinde @ Vimal Bhagwan Mhatre v. Chandrakant Bhagwan Mhatre (Caveator)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Vijay Shinde @ Vimal Bhagwan Mhatre v. Chandrakant Bhagwan Mhatre (Caveator)

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

Sanjeev Alias Sanjay Subash Grover Vs Vertex Trading Co. and Anr.

Sns Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indage Vintners Ltd.

Tapas Kumar Ghosh Vs Shri Afzal Suleman Masnsuri and 2 Ors.

Prerna Pramod Vaishmpayan Vs ...................................

Ketankumar Maganlal Sharma Vs Mrs.Dahiben Vasantkumar Patel and Ors.

1. Neela Satpal Matreja and Anr. Vs Ashok Naranji Thakkar