Disposed

1 Shri Maruti Laxman Mahulkar (Since Deceased Thr. His Heirs) 1A Smt. Satwashila Maruti Mahulkar v. 1 the Central Government Superintendent Post and Telegraph G.P.O. Mumbai

Bombay HC2 Feb 2018CAS/1379/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the condonation of delay in filing a reply to an application under Civil Appeal No.20827 of 2011, imposing a cost of Rs.5,000 on the Applicants.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in filing reply under Civil Application No.1379 of 2011, punishable by payment of Rs.5,000 costs.

What the court decided

1 Shri Maruti Laxman Mahulkar (Since Deceased Thr. His… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 20 CAS 1379-11 & CAS 671-14 in SAst 20827-11 .doc

¶2

Sequeira

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1379 OF 2011 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 671 OF 2014 in SECOND APPEAL (St.) NO. 20827 OF 2011

¶5

Mr.Maruti Laxman Mahulkar Since deceased through his heirs 1A. Ms.Satwashila Maruti Mahulkar and others .. Applicants / Appellants Vs The Central Government - Superintendent Post and Telegraph and others .. Respondents

¶6

Mr.D.V.Sutar, for Applicants / Appellants.

¶7

Mr.S.V.Bharucha, for Respondent No.2.

¶8

Mr.S.R.Moray i/b Mr.V.S.Talkute, for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶9

Coram : N.M.Jamdar, J. Date : 2 February 2018.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

2 20 CAS 1379-11 & CAS 671-14 in SAst 20827-11 .doc

¶13

The Application is filed for condonation of delay of one year and 269 days. In the application it is stated that the Applicants are original Defendants and Respondents-Plaintiffs had filed a suit in respect of declaration of title to Indira Vikas Patra. The suit was decreed and injunction was granted against the Appellants and the first Appeal filed by the Appellants was dismissed. It is stated in the application that Applicants are women and the Applicant No.1 was mainly looking after the matter who because of her ill-health and age could not follow the matter in time and there was a communication gap between her and the Advocate.

¶14

The reasons stated in the application cannot be stated to be imaginary or false. Inspite of the order dated 3 March 2017 to file reply within two weeks, no reply is filed for almost a year till date.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that, the delay needs to be condoned on imposition of cost. Accordingly, the Civil Application No.1379 of 2011 is allowed subject to Applicants paying costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 within period of four weeks from today.

1 Shri Maruti Laxman Mahulkar (Since Deceased Thr. His Heirs) 1A Smt. Satwashila Maruti Mahulkar v. 1 the Central Government Superintendent Post and Telegraph G.P.O. Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

1 Shri Maruti Laxman Mahulkar (Since Deceased Thr. His Heirs) 1A Smt. Satwashila Maruti Mahulkar v. 1 the Central Government Superintendent Post and Telegraph G.P.O. Mumbai

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

Indusind Bank Ltd. and Dilip Ganpat Morbale (Applicant) vs Ramchandra G. Morbale and Anr. and Dilip Ganpat Morbale - Applicant

Indusind Bank Ltd. and Dilip Ganpat Morbale (Applicant) vs Ramchandra G. Morbale and Anr. and Dilip Ganpat Morbale - Applicant

Faiyyaz a. Gafoor Sagari vs the Municipal Corporation for City of Solapur and Anr.

1 Shri Maruti Laxman Mahulkar (Since Deceased Thr. His Heirs) 1A Smt. Satwashila Maruti Mahulkar Vs 1 the Central Government Superintendent Post and Telegraph G.P.O. Mumbai

Shakil Ahmed Mohammed Safi Ansari vs Mr. Abdul Salim Mustar Shaikh and Ors.

Shri.Mahadev Hari Pawaskar vs Shri.Prakash Annat Pawaskar