Dismissed

Smt. Anupama Jamnu Hiranandini v. Shri. Mohan Sobhraj Somai and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Apr 2013WP/3500/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial court's rejection of applications for condonation of extraordinary delay and removal of parties. The court held that the trial court correctly rejected the plea as the petitioners proceeded in a casual manner and designated the wrong deceased defendant.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the impugned orders of the Trial Court were upheld.

Smt. Anupama Jamnu Hiranandini Vs Shri. Mohan Sobhraj Somai and Ors. — Partition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1/2 -

¶2

907.wp.3500.13.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3500 OF 2013

¶5

Smt. Anupama Jamnu Hiranandini ..Petitioner

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Shri Mohan Sobhraj Somai & Ors.

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Mr.A.G.Damle i/b Vaibhav Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶10

CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 9^TH APRIL 2013

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1 The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 2.08.2012 passed on applications Exhibit 81 and 83 and the order dated 15.12.2012 passed on applications Exhibits 87 and 89 thereby rejecting the applications which were filed for condonation of delay and for setting aside the abatement qua the Defendant No.4. The delay is of 930 days. However, the first application Exhibit 81 is bereft of any reasons as to why the said delay has occasioned. Though it is the Defendant No.5 whose legal heirs are to be brought on record, however, in the application the reference is to the Defendant No.4. The said applications Exhibit 81 and 83 were rejected on the ground that since the Defendant No.4 is the sister of the Plaintiff and since the application is bereft of any reasons, the Trial Court therefore did not deem it fit to exercise discretion and

¶13

allow the said application Exhibit 81. By the first impugned order dated

¶14

S.K.Talekar

¶15

907.wp.3500.13.doc

¶16

2/2 -

¶17

2.08.2012, the said two applications came to be rejected.

¶18

2 Inspite of the rejection of the applications Exhibits 81 and 83, the Plaintiff filed the second set of applications being Exhibit 87 and 89 for the same reliefs except now mentioning that the heirs of Defendant No.5 are to be brought on record. The Trial Court in view of the rejection of the first set of applications held that the second set of applications could not be considered and rejected the same. Though the Suit is one for partition, in the light of the fact as afore-stated, the orders passed by the Trial Court rejecting the said two sets of applications, cannot be found fault with. The said application 81 discloses that the Plaintiff has proceeded in a most casual manner in as much as apart from the fact that the application was filed after a delay of 938 days, it was also filed to bring heirs of the Defendant No.4 though in fact it is the Defendant No.5, who had expired. A Writ Court obviously cannot aid such a litigant. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out.

¶19

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Smt. Anupama Jamnu Hiranandini v. Shri. Mohan Sobhraj Somai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anupama Jamnu Hiranandini v. Shri. Mohan Sobhraj Somai 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

Shri. Sitaram Bhagaji Unhavane and Ors. Vs Dr. Sau. Pradnya Vikram Vaidya

Shri. Anil Rohidas Ugale Vs Shri. Bhimdeo Mahadeo Powar and Ors.

Shri. Gajanan Baburao Shitole and Ors. Vs Shri. Chandrakant Shankar Raut and Ors.

Shri. Shyamsundar R. Agarwal Vs Shri. Gaurishankar Govardhandas Todi and Ors.

Kabristan Vyavasthapan Committee, Fejiwade, through Secretary Vs Ujjwal Shripatrao Lingras

Shri. Shyamsundar R. Agarwal Vs Shri. Gaurishankar Govardhandas Todi and Ors.