Dismissed

Lalit Prabha Wasudev Walawalkar (Since Decd) and Ors. v. Shri. Jadhavkumar Liladhar Mainthia (Since Decd) and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Aug 2013WP/6597/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a trial Judge's order condoning delay for plaint amendment in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 1648, the single-judge High Court held that it had no reason to interfere at that stage as the validity of the Power of Attorney was under challenge. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed.

Lalit Prabha Wasudev Walawalkar (Since Decd)… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP6597_13.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6597 OF 2013

¶5

Lalit Prabha Wasudev Walawalkar (dead) and others … Petitioners Vs. Jadhavkumar Liladhar Mainthia (dead) and others … Respondents

¶6

Mr. P. S. Dani for Petitioners.

¶7

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 26^TH AUGUST, 2013

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

Heard Mr. Dani, learned Counsel for petitioners at length.

¶10

By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the original defendants have challenged the judgment and order dated 25.03.2013 passed by the learned Judge, Court Room No.20 of Court of Small Causes below exhibit-30 in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 1648 / 2399 of 2006. By that order, the learned trial Judge allowed the application made by the applicants before him for condoning the delay in carrying out amendment in the plaint.

¶11

In support of this Petition, Mr. Dani invited my attention to the

¶12

General Power of Attorney executed by i) Jaimini Kumar Mainthia, ii) Nikhilesh Jadavakumar Mainthia and iii) Jayshree Tejas Vakil nee Jayshree

¶13

1/2

¶14

WP6597_13.sxw

¶15

Mainthia favour of Dr. Anil Nandlal Suchak. He also invited my attention to paragraph 6 of the impugned order wherein the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the general power of attorney produced before the Court cannot be relied upon for several reasons. He submitted that Dr. Suchak is not competent to file application dated 07.09.2012 as he is not validly appointed as a constituted attorney of these persons.

¶16

By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has allowed the application and condoned the delay caused in carrying out amendment. At the same time, the learned trial Judge observed in paragraph 7 that challenge to the Power of Attorney needs no consideration at this stage and the same will be dealt on merits.

¶17

In view thereof, no interference is called for at this stage. It would be open to the petitioners to raise challenges about the validity of the General Power of Attorney as also the acts of constituted attorney Dr. Suchak, at an appropriate stage.

¶18

Subject to the above, the Petition fails and the same is dismissed.

¶19

(R. G. KETKAR, J.)

¶20

Minal Parab

¶21

2/2

Lalit Prabha Wasudev Walawalkar (Since Decd) and Ors. v. Shri. Jadhavkumar Liladhar Mainthia (Since Decd) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Prabha Wasudev Walawalkar (Since Decd) and Ors. v. Shri. Jadhavkumar Liladhar Mainthia (Since Decd) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khurshid Saifuddin Bohri and Ors. Vs Usha Dilip Mirchandani and Ors.

Suman Dattatraya Mule Vs Shobha Dinkarrao Khape and Othrs

Govind Narayan Shukre and Ors. Vs Chandulal Shamchand Shah and Ors.

United Bank of India Vs Tejumal Lakhimchand Narang (Since Decd)

Kamal Pasha Zaidy Vs Ram Kripal

Kamal Pasha Zaidy Vs Durgawati Devi