The Letters Patent Appeal against the restoration of a civil suit, provisionally dismissed for failure to remove office objections, was dismissed without merits despite allegations of false statements by the advocate.
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.
1/3
appl-221-16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL (L) NO.221 OF 2016 IN
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.965 OF 2016 IN
SUIT NO.397 OF 2016
Mohd.Phool Shaikh ...Appellant v/s. Bhavik Dattani & ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Ram Upadhyay i/b Law Competere Consultus for the Appellant. None for the Respondents.
CORAM : A.S.OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 9 JUNE 2016
P.C.:
(Not on Board. Taken on Board)
Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant. The Appellant is original Defendant. The suit filed by the Respondents-original Plaintiffs was placed before the Prothonotary & Senior Master on 1 December 2015. Conditional order was passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master directing that if office objections were not removed by 29 December 2015, the suit will stand dismissed under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules. As the Advocate for the Plaintiffs did not remove the office objections, the suit stood dismissed. By the impugned order, the learned
1/3
Uday.P.Kambli
2/3
appl-221-16.doc
single Judge has restored the suit by extending time to remove the office objections till 4 May 2016 with a rider that the time will not be extended any further. Moreover, the impugned order has been passed on the basis of statement of the learned Advocate representing the original Plaintiffs to personally pay costs quantified at Rs.15,000/- to the present Applicant and an additional amount of Rs.15,000/- to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority.
1 AIR 2014 SC 746
2/3
Uday.P.Kambli
3/3
appl-221-16.doc
has directed payment of costs as stated above. There is no reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the learned single Judge in
this Letters Patent Appeal. We find that there is no merit in the Appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed.
(A.A. SAYED, J.)
(A.S.OKA, J.)
3/3
Uday.P.Kambli
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Letters Patent Appeal should be allowed given the restoration of the suit dismissed on technical grounds for failure to remove objections.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Basawaraj & ors. v/s The Spl.Land Acquisition OfficerReferred¶18
Basawaraj & ors. v/s The Spl.Land Acquisition Officer
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd. Phool Shaikh
Bhavik Dattani
others
A.S. OKA
A.A. SAYED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
