Mr. Placid Jospeh D'Souza Vs Smt. Champadevi Azadnath Tiwari

Mr.Thorat submitted that the applicant had instituted suit against the respondent on the grounds of i) arrears of rent ii) additions and alterations of permanent nature thereby causing damage to the suit premises iii) nuisance and annoyance as also iv) bonafide requirement. The suit was dismissed on 31/10/2002. The appeal preferred by the applicant was dismissed on 17/10/2012. He invited my attention to the reasons given in paragraphs 4 to 8 and submitted that the delay caused is neither deliberate nor intentional.

¶18

Office remark shows that respondent is duly served. No

¶19

21.cac.382.13

¶20

-: 2 :-

¶21

reply is filed opposing the application. In view thereof, I am satisfied that applicant has made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Hence, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs.

¶22

Office is directed to register the Civil Revision Application.

¶23

(R.G.KETKAR)

Mr. Placid Jospeh D'Souza v. Smt. Champadevi Azadnath Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Placid Jospeh D'Souza v. Smt. Champadevi Azadnath Tiwari

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

Mr. Nyamatullah Abdulgani Shaikh Vs Leelavati Govindrao Basangar and Anr.

Shamsul Hasan Mohammed Hafiz Haji Vs Supreme India Construction

Mrs. Zohara Shamshul Hasan Vs Supreme India Construction

Mr. Clemant Vincent Saldanha (Since Deceased through Legal Heirs) Vs Mrs. Benvemitta Lam and Anr.

Sumant Sharadchandra Ranade Vs Jagannath Babu Shetty and Anr.

Bijendra Singh Vs Lt. Col. Amarjit Singh Mongia and Ors.