Allowed

Bhamre Balasaheb Nimba v. the Joint Secretary, Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj Nashik and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jun 2017CAW/1177/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court recalled an order dismissing a writ petition due to failure to remove office objections. The applicant successfully sought condonation of a delay in filing the recall application due to clerical negligence.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 29th September, 2010 is recalled. The writ petition is restored to the file subject to removal of office objections within two weeks.

Bhamre Balasaheb Nimba Vs the Joint Secretary… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

904 caw 1177-17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1177 OF 2017

¶3

¶4

WRIT PETITION (st) NO. 31022 OF 2009

¶5

Bhamre Balasaheb Nimba

..Applicant

v/s.

The Joint Secretary,

Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj

¶10

& Ors. ..Respondents

¶11

Mr. Mihir Joshi i/b. Mihir Desai for the Applicant None for the Respondent.

¶12

CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : 14^th JUNE, 2017.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

By this application the applicant has sought to condone the delay of 101 days in filing the application for recalling the order dated 29^th September, 2010.

¶15

Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant. It is seen that the applicant herein had filed Writ Petition (st) No. 31022 of 2009. By order dated 29^th September, 2010 the applicant was directed to remove the office objections within a period of two weeks. The order further stated that failure to remove the office objections within the stipulated time would result in dismissal of the petition. The

1 of 2

pps

904 caw 1177-17.doc

applicant did not comply with the said order, which resulted into dismissal of the writ petition.

¶20

The applicant had filed an application on 8^th February, 2011 for recalling of the said order. It is seen that the application has been registered only in the year 2017. Explanation was called for from the Registry and it has been reported that the application was not registered in view of shortage of space, as well as insufficient staff. Suffice to say that the explanation is not satisfactory.

¶21

Be that as it may, in paragraph 3 of the application , the applicant has stated that the clerk of the Advocate had failed to note the relevant date. As a result the advocate on record did not attend the matter and consequently failed to remove the office objections within the stipulated time.

¶22

In my considered view, the explanation given in paragraph 2 and 3 of the application is sufficient to recall the order. Hence the order dated 29^th September, 2010 is recalled. The writ petition shall be restored to the file, subject to the applicant removing the office objections within a period of two weeks from the date of this order.

¶23

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶24

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶25

2 of 2

¶26

pps

Bhamre Balasaheb Nimba v. the Joint Secretary, Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj Nashik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhamre Balasaheb Nimba v. the Joint Secretary, Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj Nashik and Ors.

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. Dattatraya Vithu Kumbhar and Anr. Vs Smt. Parvati Shankar Mhalungekar and Ors.

Vikas Devidas Jadhav Vs the President, Nashik Jilha Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj Sevak Sahakar Society Ltd. and Ors.

Vikram Somnath Kare Vs the President, Nashik Jilha Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj Sevak Sahakar Society Ltd. and Ors.

Devendra Ajit Gambhir and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Equinox Environments (India) Private Limited,Environmental and Civil Engineers,Consultants and Anal Vs M/S. Challa Chlorides Private Limited and Ors.

P.N. Mehta Educational Trust and Anr. Vs Ms. Jacinta Daniel Ankaipagar and Anr.