Allowed

Mrs. Ujwala Rahul Pitale v. Mr. Rahul Pandurang Pitale

Bombay HC8 Jun 2017CAO/97/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the applicant's application to set aside the Registrar's peremptory order rejecting the application for condonation of delay, finding sufficient cause for non-removal of objections. It also condoned the delay in filing the cross objectioon, allowing it on record.

What did the court decide?

Civil Application (CAO) No. 97 of 2017 allowed with restoration of CAO St. No. 3008 of 2016; delay condoned and cross objection taken on record.

Mrs. Ujwala Rahul Pitale Vs Mr. Rahul… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

vikrant 1/2 8-CAO-97-2017.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 97 OF 2017 IN

¶4

REJECTED CASE ON 1955 OF 2016

¶5

WITH

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) ST. NO. 3008 OF 2016 IN CROSS OBJECTION (X.O.B.) ST. NO. 3007 OF 2016 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2012

¶7

Mrs. Ujwala Rahul Pitale Vs.

¶8

Mr. Rahul Pandurang Pitale

¶9

… Applicant

¶10

… Respondent

¶11

Mr. S. V. Sadavarte for the Applicant. Mr. Hrishikesh Giri for the Respondent.

¶12

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M. S. SONAK, JJ.

¶13

DATE : JUNE 08, 2017.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties on Civil Application (CAO) No. 97 of 2017, which is an Application for setting aside the peremptory order passed by the Registrar (Judicial-II), thereby rejecting the Appellant's application for condonation of delay in filing the Cross Objection on the ground of non-compliance of office objections.

¶16

vikrant 2/2 8-CAO-97-2017.odt

¶17

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the Appellant and having gone through the averments made in the Civil Application (CAO) No. 97 of 2017, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for non-removal of office objections within time. In the circumstances, we allow the Civil Application (CAO) No. 97 of 2017 and order restoration of Civil Application (CAO) St. No. 3008 of 2016.

¶18

We have also heard learned counsel for the parties on Civil Application (CAO) St. No. 3008 of 2016 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Cross Objection.

¶19

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, in our considered view, delay has been explained satisfactorily. Accordingly, delay is condoned. As a result, Civil Application (CAO) St. No. 3008 of 2016 stands allowed. The Cross Objection be taken on record. It will be considered at the time of final hearing of the Appeal.

¶20

List the matter as per C.M.I.S. date.

¶21

(M. S. SONAK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Mrs. Ujwala Rahul Pitale v. Mr. Rahul Pandurang Pitale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Ujwala Rahul Pitale v. Mr. Rahul Pandurang Pitale

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

Shri. Vishnu Ramesh Shinde Vs the Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra (through the Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs Shri. Shankar Goma Keni (Deceased)through His Legal HEIRS1-1) Shri. Anant Shankar Keni and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra (through the Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs Shri. Shankar Goma Keni (Deceased)through His Legal HEIRS1-1) Shri. Anant Shankar Keni and Ors.

Jaywant S Mulik Vs Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provindent Fund and Another

Shri.Samir Jagannath Lokhande(Since Deceased through)Legal Heris Smt.Vidya Samir Lokhande and Ors. Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Smt. Sulochna Shankar Kolekar (Since Deceased) through Her Legal HEIRS.1- Shri.Dattatraya S.Kolekar Vs Shri. Keshav Tukaram Taware