Allowed

Vaibhav Dayabhai Patel v. 1. Wavell Joseph Pereira and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Aug 2015NMT/33/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judiciary at Bombay corrected a clerical error in the court record. It ordered that a prior order dated May 11, 2012 be attributed to Notice of Motion No. 144 of 2012 rather than No. 62 of 2011, and restored No. 62 of 2011 to file for directions.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 11 May 2012 corrected to Notice of Motion No. 144 of 2012; Notice of Motion No. 62 of 2011 restored to file and listed for directions.

Vaibhav Dayabhai Patel Vs 1. Wavell Joseph Pereira and Anr. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

914-NMT-33-15-NMT-62-11-TS-105-98.DOC

¶2

Sharayu.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 33 OF 2015

¶4

IN

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 62 OF 2011

¶6

IN

¶7

TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 105 OF 1998

¶8

Vaibhav Dayabhai Patel…Applicant
In the matter between
Vaibhav Dayabhai Patel…Plaintiff
Versus
Wavell Joseph Pereira & Anr.…Defendants

¶9

Ms. N.S. Moily , for the Applicant.

¶10

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 4th August 2015

¶11

PC:-

¶12

1.Heard. It appears that on 11th May 2012 an order came to be
passed on a Notice of Motion filed by a third party developer. That
Motion No. was 144 of 2012. However, the order of 11th May 2012
is shown as having been passed in Notice of Motion No. 62 of 2011.
This is evidently incorrect. Notice of Motion No. 62 of 2011 was
filed by the Plaintiff and not by the Defendants or the third party. It

¶13

1 of 2

¶14

914-NMT-33-15-NMT-62-11-TS-105-98.DOC

¶15

sought a setting aside of an order dated 1st October 2010 dismissing
the Suit for default.

¶16

2.The result of this is that the Plaintiff’s Suit is shown as
having been dismissed for default and the Plaintiff’s Notice of
Motion is incorrectly shown as having been disposed of on 11th
May 2012. On that day, it was the third party’s Notice of Motion
No. 144 of 2012 that was actually disposed of.

¶17

3.In consequence, it is necessary to make this Motion absolute
in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). So ordered. The order dated
11th May 2012 is to be corrected to read as having been passed in
Notice of Motion No. 144 of 2012.

¶18

4.Notice of Motion No. 62 of 2011 is restored to file. List the
Notice of Motion No. 62 of 2011 for directions on 7th August 2015.

¶19

5.Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff will give notice to the
Advocates for the Defendants as also to the Advocates for the
Applicant in Notice of Motion No. 144 of 2012, enclosing a copy of
today’s order.

¶20

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶21

2 of 2

Vaibhav Dayabhai Patel v. 1. Wavell Joseph Pereira and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Dayabhai Patel v. 1. Wavell Joseph Pereira and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gastro Pub Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sachindra K. Shetty

Gastro Pub Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sachindra K. Shetty

Kalpana Dinesh Vithlani Vs Ashwin Bhupatrai Mavani

Sheetal Dhruv Vora Vs Hima Ameet Mehta

Aparna Prabhat Khot Vs Shirish Popatlal Shah and 5 Others

Kshamika Sachin Mule Vs Shripad Shriram Mule and Sangeeta Shripad Mule (Caveators/Applicants)