Dismissed

Cyrus Naval Mistry v. Jal Homee Billimoria

Bombay HC14 Jan 2016APP/136/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed an appeal challenging an order that allowed a chamber summons to condone a 250-day delay in filing an affidavit. The Single Judge held limitation had not commenced due to lack of citation service. The High Court saw no illegality and allowed the summons.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appeal against the Single Judge's order allowing chamber summons for condonation of delay is dismissed.

Cyrus Naval Mistry Vs Jal Homee Billimoria — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

925-appl.434.2014.doc

¶2

1/2

¶3

nsc.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO.434 OF 2014 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.46 OF 2014 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.687 OF 1999 WITH

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.1762 OF 2014

¶6

Cyrus Naval Mistry ...Appellant Versus Jal Homee Billimoria ...Respondent

¶7

Mr.Nitin Vatkar i/b Mr.G.S.Hiranandani, for the Appellant.

¶8

Mr.E.P.Bharucha, Senior Counsel a/w Mr.Firoj Bharucha i/b Mr.D.R.Mishra, for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 14^th JANUARY, 2016

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶13

The appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned

¶14

Single Judge in the Chamber Summons taken out by him for condonation of delay of 250 days to file affidavit in support of the caveat. The learned

¶15

925-appl.434.2014.doc

¶16

2/2

¶17

counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has taken us through the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has observed that the citation was not personally served upon the respondent/applicant. The learned Single Judge has therefore observed that since there was no service of citation, the limitation to file affidavit in support of the caveat or caveat did not commence and therefore merely because the caveat was filed in the year 2000 without service of citation was of no consequence.

¶18

We do not see any illegality or infirmity in the order passed

¶19

by the learned Single Judge. We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the chamber summons in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). No prejudice is caused to the appellant because though the Probate Petition was filed in the year 1999, till date he has not filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the contesting witnesses.

¶20

The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

¶21

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶22

V.M. KANADE, J.

Cyrus Naval Mistry v. Jal Homee Billimoria

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cyrus Naval Mistry v. Jal Homee Billimoria

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

Nirmala Mahendra Shah Vs Kavits Sandeep Shah and 12 Ors.

Mehmood Iqrar Shaikh Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 5 Others

Ravindra Dagadu Jadhav and 12 Ors. Vs M/S Singasane Engineering and Realty and 7 Ors.

Mr. Sandeep Chandrakant Kalekar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Office of Collector and Anr.

Sagar Shivaji Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Sandeep Chandrakant Kalekar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Office of Collector and Anr.