This judgment decreed an uncontested testamentary suit due to the defendant's persistent absence. The caveats were discharged, and the decree was drawn up without dispensing with formalities regarding service requisition.
Suit decreed; Caveat discharged; No requisition regarding service to be raised.
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.
902-TS-77-2016.DOC
SHEPHALI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 77 OF 2016
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 1131 OF 2015
WITH
CAVEAT NO. 114 OF 2016
Rathnamala Suresh
...Plaintiff
Versus
Babu Shivsubramaniam Chidambaram
…Defendant
Mr. Ajit Shah, i/b Jacob Kadantot for the Plaintiff.
CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:27th October 2016
PC:-
1.The Defendant is persistently absent despite the matter being
listed regularly and multiple opportunities. The progress of a suit
cannot be indefinitely delayed by a Defendant staying away like this.
2. The Caveat is discharged. There is no other contest to the Petitioner. The Petition to proceed as an uncontested Petition.
3. The Suit is decreed. Drawn up decree dispensed with.
Page 1 of 2
27th October 2016
902-TS-77-2016.DOC
4. The Department is not to raise any requisition as to service of citation.
5. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
Page 2 of 2
27th October 2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit should be decreed in the absence of the defendant.
Rathnamala Suresh
G. S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court