In an affidavit-based motion filed over five years after an earlier default dismissal, the Bombay High Court's Testamentary Jurisdiction bench dismissed the motion for non-appearance of the petitioner, leaving the earlier dismissal order intact.
The Notice of Motion was dismissed; the order dismissing the Petition stands.
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.
930-NMT11-12.DOC
SHEPHALI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 11 OF 2012
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 823 OF 2007
Kirti Rajmal Davada..Petitioner
Versus
Lalita Rajmal Davada…Defendant
None for the Petitioner.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 24th June 2016
PC:-
1.The Petition was dismissed for default. That was by order
dated 8th March 2011. The Motion is filed in December 2011
seeking that the order of dismissal be set aside and the Petition be
restored to file. The Motion was adjourned to 30th January 2012
and yet again on 6th February 2012 and then again on 21st February
2012. It then came up several years later on 21st June 2016. By the
time it reached, it was past 5.00 p.m. I did not, therefore, dismiss
the Motion, but directed that it be placed high on the
supplementary board, also making it clear that should the Petitioner
remain absent again, I would dismiss the Motion.
Page 1 of 2
24th June 2016
930-NMT11-12.DOC
2.The name of the Petitioner and his Advocate are correctly
shown on the board. They are called out. None appears.
3.The Notice of Motion is dismissed. Consequently, the order
dismissing the Petition stands.
4.Both the Notice of Motion and the Petition are disposed of in
these terms.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
Page 2 of 2
24th June 2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Notice of Motion to set aside an order of dismissal for default should be allowed given the petitioner's prolonged absence.
Kirti Rajmal Davada
Lalita Rajmal Davada
G. S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court