Allowed

Vatsalya B Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Smt. Tahera Ali Athar Khan and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jun 2014CAA/251/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge civil application seeking condonation of 141 days delay in filing an Appeal from Order. Bench considered submissions reg: earlier appeal pendency and liberty granted, permitting deletion of some respondents and condoning delay.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 141 days in preferring Appeal from Order is condoned; Civil Application disposed of accordingly.

Vatsalya B Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

17 caa 251-14=.doc

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 251 OF 2014 IN

¶4

APPEAL FROM ORDER ST. NO. 3811 OF 2014

¶5

Vatsalya “B” CHS Ltd. … Applicant. V/s. Smt. Tahera Ali Athar Khan & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Shabbir Kapadia i/b Robin Fernandes for the applicant. Mr. V.R. Tripathi for the respondent.

¶7

CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATED : 24/06/2014.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶10

2 Office note shows that respondent nos. 3,4 and 5 are not served.

¶11

3 The learned counsel for the applicant makes a statement that they are not pressing the present proceeding against respondent nos. 3,4 and 5 and seeks permission to delete the name of these respondents from civil application as well as Appeal from Order. Same is permitted.

¶12

4 Amendment to be carry out during the course of day.

¶13

5 This civil application is preferred by original plaintiff for

1/3

Sneha Chavan

17 caa 251-14=.doc

condonation of 141 days delay in filing the Appeal From Order against the Order dated 14.08.2013 passed by Bombay City Civil Court, Mumbai in Notice of Motion No. 655 of 2012.

¶18

6 The learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier they preferred Appeal from Order no. 63 of 2014 challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in another Notice of Motion i.e. Notice of Motion No. 3304 of 2013 dated 05.12.2013. He further submits that the Appeal from Order no. 63 of 2014 was on board before this Court (Coram: Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J) on 29.01.2014, at that time, this court granted liberty to the applicant to file Appeal from Order against order dated 14.08.2013. He submits that considering this fact, delay of 141 days in filing the present appeal may be condoned. He submits that applicant has good chance of success in the present proceeding. He further submits that if delay is not condoned, irreparable loss and injury will be caused to the applicant.

¶19

7 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 vehemently apposed the civil application. He submits that applicant has not shown sufficient cause for condonation of 141 days delay in filing Appeal from Order. He further submits that earlier the applicant filed Appeal from Order no. 63 of 2014 challenging the order darted 05.12.2013 in Notice of Motion No. 3304 of 2013, at that time, applicant has not challenged the impugned order in the present proceeding i.e. 14.08.2013. Hence, there is no merits in the present Civil Application and same is deserves to be dismissed.

2/3

Sneha Chavan

17 caa 251-14=.doc

8 I heard both the sides at length. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and liberty granted by this court by order dated 29.01.2014 in Appeal from Order no. 63 of 2014, I am satisfied that applicant has made out case for allowing this civil application.

¶24

9 It is to be noted that issue about whether one Appeal from Order is maintainable against two orders i.e. order dated 14.08.2013 in Notice of Motion No. 655 of 2012 and order dated 05.12.2013 in Notice of Motion No. 3304 of 2013 is kept open and that can be decided at the time of considering the present Appeal from Order.

¶25

10 Hence, following order.

¶26

i) Delay of 141 days in preferring Appeal from Order against the order dated 14.08.2013 in Notice of Motion No. 655 of 2012 in suit No. 10286 of 2012, is condoned.

¶27

ii) Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(K.K.TATED, J.)

¶29

3/3

¶30

Sneha Chavan

Vatsalya B Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Smt. Tahera Ali Athar Khan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vatsalya B Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Smt. Tahera Ali Athar Khan 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

Smt. Sushilabai Wife of Shivajirao Bhosale and Ors. Vs Deelip Vasantrao Pahdanis

M/S Amar Pratik Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. Siddhant Dilipkumar Shah and Others

M/S Vijay Gruh Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Shri Vidyanand Pandurang Patil and Ors.

The Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority and Anr. Vs Mr. Pandurang Sitaram Sawant

Shri Virendra K. Vora Vs Manhar Chs Ltd. and Anr.

The Devdut Co-Op. Housing Society Vs Mrs. Silloo Dara Zaiwalla nee Sillo M. Sethna