Allowed

Laxman S. Gaokar (Dec) Rep. by His Lrs., v. Pramila Kanta Naik and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Nov 2017MCA/851/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed a miscellaneous civil application and restored a stamp number to the file. The judge corrected a registry error regarding service notice and directed compliance for impleading an heir.

What did the court decide?

Civil Application allowed; Stamp Number Main No.727 of 2013 restored to file; period fixed to file affidavit for impleading heir.

Laxman S. Gaokar (Dec) Rep. by His Lrs., Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

 1 MCA851-17 dt16-11-17

¶2

Amrut

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.851 OF 2017 IN

¶4

STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO.727 OF 2013

¶5

Shri Laxman S. Gaokar….Applicant
Versus
Smt. Pramila Kanta Naik & Ors….Respondent

¶6

Mr. P. Talaulikar, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶7

Coram : N.M. Jamdar, J.
 Date : 16 November 2017.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant.

¶10

2.Considering the facts and circumstances and the reasons
set out in the application, the Civil Application is allowed. Stamp
Number Main No.727 of 2013 stands restored to file.

¶11

3.As far as Respondent No.1 is concerned, the Remark
made by the registry dated 19 February 2014 states that the notice to
Respondent No.1 was returned unserved as she had refused to accept
the notice and also did not allow affixing on the door. This is an error
on the part of registry. There is no question of notice being returned

¶12

 2 MCA851-17 dt16-11-17

¶13

unserved when according to the Registry, the bailiff report states that
the recipient has refused to accept the notice. This will have to be
treated as good service and registry ought to have placed such an
endorsement. The consequence for not placing such endorsement has
resulted in dismissal of the appeal for non prosecution.

¶14

4.As far as Respondent No.3 is concerned, the learned
counsel for the Applicant states that his heir, Respondent No.2 is
already on record. The affidavit to that effect be filed within a period
of two weeks after ascertaining that all compliance are done. The
registry will place the appeal after it is ready on board for admission.

¶15

N.M. Jamdar, J.

Laxman S. Gaokar (Dec) Rep. by His Lrs., v. Pramila Kanta Naik and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman S. Gaokar (Dec) Rep. by His Lrs., v. Pramila Kanta Naik and 2 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

Jude G. Tandon and Anr., Vs Sunil Noronha and Anr.

Branch Manager and Anr., Vs Shri. Sai Labour Contract Co-Op. Society, Thr. Its Secretary, Katri Balachandran Vadkke and Anr.

Anant Vaman Parab., Vs Shri. Devi Bhumika Vetal Devastan Palyem Pernem, Rep. by Its President Sadashiv v. Parab and 4 Ors.

Goa Industrial Development Corporation, Thr. Its Managing Director., Vs Alandro Dilip Nunes and 4 Ors.

Savlo Shivram Mandrekar and Anr., Vs Kumudini Gurudas Joshi, Rep. Thr. Poa, Sanjay R. Joshi (Dec) Rep. by His Legal Rep.

Savlo Shivram Mandrekar and Anr., Vs Kumudini Gurudas Joshi, Rep. Thr. Poa, Sanjay R. Joshi (Dec) Rep. by Her Legal Rep.