Remanded

Vidula Rajesh Musale v. Rajesh Sadashiv Musale (Deceased)

Bombay HC25 Oct 2016NMT/209/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge court restored a dismissed testamentary petition for letters of administration. The court imposed personal costs on the advocate and discharged related motion notices as infructuous upon restoration.

What did the court decide?

Testamentary Petition No. 916 of 2011 restored to file subject to advocate paying Rs. 10,000 personal costs; notices disposed of.

Vidula Rajesh Musale Vs Rajesh Sadashiv Musale… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

929-NMT209-16+.DOC

¶2

ATUL

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 209 OF 2016

¶4

IN

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 129 OF 2016 IN

¶6

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 916 OF 2011 WITH

¶7

NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 129 OF 2016

¶8

Vidula Rajesh Musale…Petitioner
And
Rajesh Sadashiv Musale…Deceased

¶9

Mr. Indrajeet R. Kulkarni , for the Petitioner/Applicant.

¶10

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 25th October 2016

¶11

PC:-

¶12

1.The Testamentary Petition for Letters of Administration is
one of 2011. It was dismissed for default by a common order dated
28th August 2013 (R.D. Dhanuka, J.). The Petitioner filed Notice of
Motion (L) No. 129 of 2016. That was dismissed for non-removal of
office objections by the Prothonotary & Senior Master by his order
dated 12th July 2016.

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

25th October 2016

¶15

929-NMT209-16+.DOC

¶16

2.Now the Petitioner files Notice of Motion No. 209 of 2016 for
restoration of Notice of Motion (L) No. 129 of 2016 and which
sought restoration of the Testamentary Petition. This is altogether
too many steps to go through.

¶17

3.I will, as a final opportunity, restore Testamentary Petition
No. 916 of 2011 itself. The default is that of the Advocate or his
Clerk, or both. This is no excuse at all and it is certainly no reason
why the Petitioner should have to suffer either the delay or costs.

¶18

4.Testamentary Petition No. 916 of 2011 is restored to file,
subject to payment of costs personally by the Advocate in the
amount of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the “Maharogi Seva Samiti”
which runs the project ANANDWAN, set up by Baba Amte, an
Ashram and a community rehabilitation centre for leprosy patients
and the disabled from downtrodden sections of society. Mr.
Kulkarni, in fairness, accepts responsibility and agrees to make
payment of costs on or before 25th November 2016.

¶19

5.Subject to the proof of payment, Testamentary Petition No.
916 of 2011 is restored to file. All office objections to be removed on
or before 13th January 2017. In default, the Petition will stand
dismissed and will not be restored thereafter under any
circumstances.

¶20

6.In view of this order, both Notices of Motion are infructuous
and are disposed of accordingly.

¶21

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶22

Page 2 of 2
25th October 2016

Vidula Rajesh Musale v. Rajesh Sadashiv Musale (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidula Rajesh Musale v. Rajesh Sadashiv Musale (Deceased)

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

Kamleshkumari Ramprakash Bindra and 4 Ors. Vs Ramprakash Laxmandas Bindra (Deceased)

Vasanti C. Dadhich and Anr. Vs Bhagvatidevi K. Dadhich and 3 Ors.

M/S. Blossum Estates Vs Deven Ramjibhai Raghani and 19 Ors.

Veena Vijaykumar Oza Vs M/S.Sharan Shelters Pvt.Ltd and 11 Ors..

Anis Abbas Rokadia and 2 Ors. Vs Shabana Wd/O. Aziz Rokadia and 3 Ors.

Geeta Mohan Narayan Vs Uma Narayan and State of Maharashtra (Applicant)