Dismissed

Ramesh B.Ahuja and Anr. v. Hari Dattatraya Shitole and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2014CAW/1290/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a civil application seeking restoration of a writ petition dismissed for default on 28.09.2010. The court held that applicants failed to condone delay or explain their absence and suppressed material facts regarding their continued participation in the trial post-dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The civil application for restoration of the withdrawn petition is dismissed with costs.

Ramesh B.Ahuja and Anr. Vs Hari Dattatraya… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

CAW1290.2013

1/3

Dusane

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1290 OF 2013 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.9282 OF 2003

¶6

Ramesh Belaram Ahuja & Ors. ..... Applicants Vs. Hari Dattatray Shitole & Anr. ..... Respondents

¶7

Mr. P.J. Pawar, Advocate for the Applicants. Respondent no.1 in person.

¶8

Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 3^rd July, 2014.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1 This civil application is for restoration of the petition that was dismissed for default on 28^th September, 2010. The civil application was taken out on 20^th April, 2013. It is opposed by the respondents.

¶11

2 There is delay of about 2½ years in filing the present application. At paragraph 8 of the application, the applicants state that the reason for delay has been stated at paragraph 3 of the application. The said paragraph reads as follows:

¶12

“The applicant no.1 approached the said learned lower court on 01/04/2013 so as to attend the original civil suit proceedings. However, the said civil suit was not on the board of lower court concerned on that day. Therefore, immediately the

CAW1290.2013

Dusane

2/3

petitioners approached to their advocate concerned alongwith the said letter and have enquired with their advocate about the matter of pending Writ Petition. Where upon they came to know that the said matter of Writ Petition came to be disposed off on dtd.29/09/2010 by their Hon'ble Lordships Coram: Justice Smt. SondurBaldota, on account of Dismissed for default/ non-prosecution , of which the petitioners-applicants were having no any idea or information, till that day and the applicants were and are in totally dark about the same till they met their said advocate on record in learned lower court”

¶17

3 In the above paragraph, the applicants neither acknowledge the extent of delay in filing the application nor state reasons for the delay. The applicants also do not explain the reason for their absence and the absence of their advocate on 28^th September, 2010. Thus, there is no case made out by the applicants to support the prayers in the civil application.

¶18

4 Respondent no.1, who appears in person complains that the applicants are guilty of suppression of material facts in their application. Relying upon the roznama of the trial court, copies whereof have been produced, he submits that after the applicants' writ petition was dismissed on 28^th September, 2010 and the stay of hearing of the suit was vacated as a consequence; the suit has proceeded before the trial court. The applicants have participated in the trial. They also changed

¶19

Dusane 3/3 CAW1290.2013

¶20

their lawyer appearing in the trial court on 29^th April, 2013. Even after taking out the present civil application, they continued to participate in the trial by cross-examining the witnesses. These facts have been suppressed in the civil application.

¶21

5 The roznama produced by respondent no.1 supports his grievance. The applicants have not only not made out any case for condonation of delay and restoration of the petition but are also guilty of suppresio veri. The civil application is therefore dismissed with costs.

¶22

(Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)

Ramesh B.Ahuja and Anr. v. Hari Dattatraya Shitole and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh B.Ahuja and Anr. v. Hari Dattatraya Shitole 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

Purshotam Narayanrao Ghate Vs Smt. Muktambi Sukrusab Nadaf and Ors.

Raghunath Namdev Dusane Vs Smt. Uttambai Trimbak Shelar and Ors.

M/S. Tvs Finance and Services Ltd. and Ors. Vs M. v. Subramaniyam and Ors.

Mr. Rushi M. Gandhy Vs Shri. Pradeep Moreshwar Gupte

Mrs. Pravina Vikrant Ghotge Vs Mr. Vinayak Ramchandra Dindorikar and Ors.

Shri. Keru Laxman Jadhav and Anr. Vs Shri. Nilesh Jaswant Rao and Ors.