Allowed

Vasudev Nohandas Gianani v. Smt Rashmi Kanayalal Gianani and Shri Jay Kanayalal Gianani (Caveators)

Bombay HC8 Aug 2017CST/92/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order condones the delay of 249 days in filing an affidavit in support of a Caveat. The court found that the caveat was inadvertently filed under CPC instead of the testamentary petition and dismissed the matter.

What did the court decide?

Chamber Summons made absolute with no order as to costs, condoning the delay of 249 days.

Vasudev Nohandas Gianani Vs Smt Rashmi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

CST92_17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.92 OF 2017

¶4

¶5

TESTAMENTARY SUIT (L) NO.123 OF 2017

¶6

¶7

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.58 OF 2016

¶8

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, appearances,Court's orders, or directions, and Registrar's Orders Ms Neha D. Nagotanekar for Applicants. Mr. G. N. Salunke for Petitioner.

¶9

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 08^TH AUGUST, 2017

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

Heard Ms Nagotanekar, learned Counsel for applicants and Mr. Salunke, learned Counsel for petitioner.

¶12

By this Chamber Summons, applicants have prayed for condoning the delay of 249 days in filing the affidavit in support of Caveat. In support of Chamber Summons, Ms Nagotanekar submitted that the citation was received by the applicants on 29.06.2016. Instead of filing Caveat in the Testamentary Petition, inadvertently, Caveat was filed under Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.') on 11.07.2016. She has invited my attention to Caveat Application filed on 11.07.2016. She submitted that it was filed within the period of 12

¶13

1/2

¶14

CST92_17.doc

¶15

days from the receipt of the citation and was within time. She, therefore, submitted that for the reasons stated in the affidavit in support, delay may be condoned.

¶16

Mr. Salunke submitted that no such ground is pleaded in the affidavit in support.

¶17

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the material on record. After perusing the material on record, it is evident that applicants received citation on 29.06.2016. Instead of filing Caveat in the Petition, applicants filed Caveat under Section 148-A of C.P.C. on 11.07.2016. The said fact is also evident from the affidavit in support of Jay Kanayalal Gianami, applicant No.2. In view thereof and for the reasons stated in the affidavit in support, I am satisfied that applicants have made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Accordingly, Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) with no order as to costs.

¶18

(R. G. KETKAR, J.)

¶19

Minal Parab

¶20

2/2

Vasudev Nohandas Gianani v. Smt Rashmi Kanayalal Gianani and Shri Jay Kanayalal Gianani (Caveators)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasudev Nohandas Gianani v. Smt Rashmi Kanayalal Gianani and Shri Jay Kanayalal Gianani (Caveators)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarita Aiyar Vs Devraj Aiar (Deceased)

Anjali Laxman Prabhu Vs Mrs. Padma Ramesh Pai

Jayantibhai Hirjibhai Shah Vs Dy. Collector (Encroachment and Removal) Competent Authority and 3 Ors.

G.S.Gupta Vs Gaurang G. Gupta and Ors. Anand Gunvantrai Gupta and Anr.

Suresh Subai Rajbhar Vs Ashokkumr Chaitar Rajbhar and 4 Ors.

Gunvantrai Shivlal Gupta Vs Gaurang Gunvantrai Gupta and 4 Ors.