The High Court at Mumbai allowed civil applications seeking condonation of delay of 42 days for filing review petitions, finding a sufficient cause. The court also permitted deletion of respondent no.3.
Delay of 42 days condoned; Civil Applications allowed; Respondent no.3 deleted from applications.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CA.2599.15 & OTHERS CHAMBER doc
ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2599 OF 2015 IN
REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 23191 OF 2015
ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2692 OF 2015 IN
REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 25634 OF 2015
ALONG WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2693 OF 2015 IN
REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 25644 OF 2015
ALONG WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2694 OF 2015 IN
REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 25631 OF 2015
ALONG WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2695 OF 2015
IN
REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 25636 OF 2015
ALONG WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2696 OF 2015
IN
REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 25640 OF 2015
ALONG WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2697 OF 2015
IN
REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 25642 OF 2015
Dilip Shankar Mulay ..Applicant
Vs 1.Pradip Shankar Mulay and ors .. Respondents
Mr.Dilip Shankar Mulay, Applicant present in-person. Mr. Sandesh Deshpande, Advocate, for Respondent no.1.
1/3
CA.2599.15 & OTHERS CHAMBER doc
Mr. Harbhajan K. Manocha, Constituted Attorney of respondent No.2 in-person present. IN CHAMBER.
CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2015
P.C. :
. Heard Mr.Dilip Shankar Mulay, Applicant in-person, Mr.
Sandesh Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Harbhajan K. Manocha, Constituted Attorney of respondent No.2 inperson in all Applications.
the ground that she has not participated in the Suit by filing written statements.
prayer clause (A) with no order as to costs. Office is directed to register the Review Petitions, if they are otherwise ready.
(R. G. KETKAR, J.)
2/3
CA.2599.15 & OTHERS CHAMBER doc
CERTIFICATE
Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgement/Order.
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to condone the delay of 42 days in filing the Review Petitions.
Whether to delete respondent no.3 who did not file a written statement.
Dilip Shankar Mulay
Pradip Shankar Mulay and ors
R. G. Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
