Disposed

Smt. Shewanti Yeashwant Bhrad and Ors. v. Dinesh Lalji Shah and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jul 2014CAO/112/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay condoned delay in a review petition filed by those not served in the original writ. The court recalled a prior judgment and restored the main writ petition to the file for admission as fresh matters.

What did the court decide?

Civil Application allowed with condonation of delay; Review Petition disposed by recalling the prior judgment; Main Writ Petition restored to file for admission.

Smt. Shewanti Yeashwant Bhrad and Ors. Vs Dinesh Lalji Shah… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2014)

cao-112.12

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.112 OF 2012 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.10118 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2195 OF 2010

¶6

Smt. Shewanti Yeashwant Barad and Ors. … Applicants/ Review Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Dinesh Lalji Shah and Ors. ... Respondents

¶9

Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, for the Applicants/ Petitioners. Mr. V.P. Malvankar, AGP, 'A' Panel, for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶10

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

¶11

A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 10^th JULY, 2014

¶13

P.C.

¶14

1] Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants who are Review Petitioners. By order dated 30^th June, 2014, this Court directed that Civil Application and Review Petition will be heard on the basis of the available material and parties were put to notice that if the delay is condoned, the Review Petition will be forthwith taken up for final hearing.

¶15

1 of 4

¶16

2 cao-112.12

¶17

2] Applicants who are the Review Petitioners were Respondent Nos.5(1) to 5(3) in the Writ Petition filed by the first Respondent in this Civil Application and Review Petition. The challenge in the Writ Petition was to the caste validity certificate issued to Kashinath Vansha Patil, the predecessor of the present Applicant Kashinath Vansha Patil.

¶18

3] The contention of the Applicants/ Review Petitioners is that though the Writ Petition has been allowed by the Judgment and Order dated 7^th September, 2010, notice of the Writ Petition was not served to the Applicants/ Review Petitioners.

¶19

4] We must note here that in the order dated 23^rd April, 2014, this Court has noted that the last remark on the Farad Sheet of the main Writ Petition shows that notice issued to the present Applicants was not returned duly served. The learned counsel appearing for the first Respondent stated that he had filed an affidavit of service. As stated in the earlier order, the second part of the Writ Petition could not be traced inspite of diligent efforts made by the Registry.

¶20

5] We have perused the Farad Sheet of the first part of the Writ Petition. Notice was issued by the Division Bench of this Court on

¶21

2 of 4

¶22

3 cao-112.12

¶23

26^th March, 2010 on the said Writ Petition. The order dated 26^th March, 2010, does not record that the notice was for final disposal. As notice was not served to the Applicants and as an affidavit of service was not filed, conditional order was passed on that on 27^th April, 2010. Office remark of 30^th June, 2010 shows that notice of the Applicants was prepared on that date. The order dated 9^th July, 2010 passed by this Court shows that service was awaited for four weeks. Again the order dated 6^th August, 2010 records that service was awaited for four weeks. The noting dated 25^th August, 2010 shows that a reminder was issued as regards notice issued to the Applicants. The further remark is that the notice issued to the present Applicants/ Review Petitioners was not received back though reminder was issued.

¶24

6] There is no office noting made on the farad sheet of the main petition that any affidavit of service of notice was filed by the first Respondent in this Application who was the Writ Petitioner. Moreover, we find that what was issued on 26^th March, 2010 was merely a notice. At no stage, a notice for final disposal at admission stage was issued on the Writ Petition. Therefore, a case is made out for condonation of delay and for recalling the final Judgment and Order dated 7^th September, 2010.

3 of 4

cao-112.12

7] Accordingly, we pass the following order :-

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) Civil Application No.112 of 2012 is allowed and delay is condoned;

¶31

(ii) We dispose of the Review Petition (St.) No.10118 of 2012 by recalling the Judgment and Order dated 7^th September, 2010;

¶32

(iii) Writ Petition No.2195 of 2010 is restored to the file of this Court which shall be placed for admission on 28^th July, 2014 in the category of “Fresh Matters”. We make it clear that it will not be necessary to serve a fresh notice of the Writ Petition to the Applicants as now the Applicants are represented before this Court.

¶33

(A. S. CHANDURKAR, J )

¶34

(A.S.OKA, J )

¶35

4 of 4

Smt. Shewanti Yeashwant Bhrad and Ors. v. Dinesh Lalji Shah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shewanti Yeashwant Bhrad and Ors. v. Dinesh Lalji Shah 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

Sidhava Sangappa Munale Vs the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny NO.1, Solapur, through Member Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Jaysing Bandu Kamble Vs the Tahsildar, Karad and Ors.

Vijaysingh Krishnarao Parbat Vs the State of Maharashtra through Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Kiran Raghunath Kamble and Anr. Vs Chief Election Commission, through Chief Election Commissioner and Ors.

Kiran Raghunath Kamble and Anr. Vs Chief Election Commission, through Chief Election Commissioner and Ors.

Shri. Sampat Raghunath Kamble and Ors. Vs Shri. Sunil Ashok Sutar and Anr.