The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a restoration application. The petitioner could not demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in seeking restoration after an earlier application was dismissed due to absence.
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.
36.wp.2647.13.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2647 OF 2013
Smt. Anubai Hindurao Patil
..Petitioner
-Versus-
..Respondents
Mr.Manoj A. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner.
CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 25TH MARCH 2013
P.C.
1 The order dated 9.10.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur rejecting the application being Misc.Civil Application No.48/2006 which was filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Application No.292/1996 is the subject matter of the above Petition.
2 The Petitioner herein is the wife of the Original Plaintiff one Hindurao Patlu Patil who had filed the Suit in question being Regular Civil Suit No.966/1987 for specific performance of an agreement. The said Suit came to be disposed of as having abated on 31.07.1993 as the heirs of the Plaintiff were not brought on record. After the said disposal of the Suit, the Petitioner herein filed an application being Misc.Civil Application No.292/1996 for restoration of the Suit by bringing herself on record as a
S.K.Talekar
Plaintiff. The said application it seems was kept for recording of evidence on 27.07.2001 on which date no appearance was put up on behalf of the Applicant i.e. the Petitioner above-named though the other side was present. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, therefore was constrained to reject the said application by an order passed on the said date i.e. 28.07.2001.
3 The Applicant thereafter did not move immediately but filed a restoration application on 6.10.2001 for restoration of the said Misc. Application No.292/1996. It appears that the said restoration application came to be numbered as Misc. Civil Application No.48/2006 and has been rejected by the impugned order. The rejection is on two fold grounds. Firstly that the relief sought in the application could not be granted in lieu of the earlier application being Misc. Application No. 292/1996 being rejected and secondly that the case of the Petitioner No.1 herein that she was unwell was not found to be acceptable to the Trial Court as according to the Trial Court there was absolutely no material to that effect placed on record.
36.wp.2647.13.doc
cannot be taken exception to. No case for interference is therefore made out.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(R.M. SAVANT, J.)
S.K.Talekar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court's order rejecting the application for restoration of a miscellaneous civil application.
Whether the Trial Court had sufficient material to reject the petitioner's claim of being unwell as a ground for delay.
Smt. Anubai Hindurao Patil
Shri Ramchandra Akaram Patil & Ors.
R.M. Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
