Allowed

Dilip Shamkar Mulay v. Pradip Shamkar Mulay

Bombay HC22 Sept 2015CAW/2599/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Mumbai allowed Civil Applications seeking condonation of delay for filing审查 Petitions and deleted respondent No.3 who failed to participate by filing a written statement. The Review Petitions were directed to be registered if ready.

What did the court decide?

Continuation of Applications allowed with condonation of delay; Respondent No.3 deleted; Registration of Review Petitions directed.

Dilip Shamkar Mulay Vs Pradip Shamkar Mulay — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

CA.2599.15 & OTHERS CHAMBER doc

¶2

ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2599 OF 2015 IN

¶6

REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 23191 OF 2015

¶7

ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2692 OF 2015 IN

¶8

REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 25634 OF 2015

¶9

ALONG WITH

¶10

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2693 OF 2015 IN

¶11

REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 25644 OF 2015

¶12

ALONG WITH

¶13

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2694 OF 2015 IN

¶14

REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 25631 OF 2015

¶15

ALONG WITH

¶16

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2695 OF 2015

¶17

¶18

REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 25636 OF 2015

¶19

ALONG WITH

¶20

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2696 OF 2015

¶21

¶22

REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 25640 OF 2015

¶23

ALONG WITH

¶24

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2697 OF 2015

¶25

¶26

REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 25642 OF 2015

¶27

Dilip Shankar Mulay ..Applicant

¶28

Vs 1.Pradip Shankar Mulay and ors .. Respondents

¶29

Mr.Dilip Shankar Mulay, Applicant present in-person. Mr. Sandesh Deshpande, Advocate, for Respondent no.1.

¶30

1/3

¶31

CA.2599.15 & OTHERS CHAMBER doc

¶32

Mr. Harbhajan K. Manocha, Constituted Attorney of respondent No.2 in-person present. IN CHAMBER.

¶33

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 22^nd SEPTEMBER, 2015

¶34

P.C. :

¶35

. Heard Mr.Dilip Shankar Mulay, Applicant in-person, Mr.

¶36

Sandesh Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Harbhajan K. Manocha, Constituted Attorney of respondent No.2 inperson in all Applications.

¶37

Mr.Mulay seeks permission to delete respondent No.3 on

¶38

the ground that she has not participated in the Suit by filing written statements.

¶39

In view thereof, on the motion made by Mr.Mulay, respondent No.3 is deleted from these Applications as also from the Review Petitions.

¶40

By these Applications, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 42 days in filing the Review Petitions. For the reasons stated in the Applications which are not controverted, I am satisfied that applicant has made out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Civil Applications are allowed in terms of

¶41

prayer clause (A) with no order as to costs. Office is directed to register the Review Petitions, if they are otherwise ready.

¶42

(R. G. KETKAR, J.)

¶43

2/3

¶44

CA.2599.15 & OTHERS CHAMBER doc

¶45

CERTIFICATE

¶46

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgement/Order.

¶47

3/3

Dilip Shamkar Mulay v. Pradip Shamkar Mulay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Shamkar Mulay v. Pradip Shamkar Mulay

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

Tata Institute of Social Sciences Vs Kiran K. Kedari and Ors.

Dahisar Sarvoday Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd. and Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar Chandanmal Jain and Ors.

M/S. Kachhi Properties through Its Partners and Anr. Vs Shri. Dnyaneshwar Mansing Phadtare and Ors.

Dilip Shamkar Mulay Vs Pradip Shamkar Mulay

Dilip Shamkar Mulay Vs Pradip Shamkar Mulay and Ors.

Dilip Shamkar Mulay Vs Pradip Shamkar Mulay and Ors.