Allowed

Raghunandan U. Bangalorekar and 2 Ors. v. K.Subramanya Karanth (Caveator)

Bombay HC18 Dec 2018CST/41/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this chamber summons, the Bombay High Court condoned a delay in filing an affidavit supporting a caveat. The applicant also sought conversion of the testamentary petition into a suit.

What did the court decide?

The chamber summons is made absolute, converting the testamentary petition into a testamentary suit upon payment of costs and production of proof.

Raghunandan U. Bangalorekar and 2 Ors. Vs K.Subramanya Karanth (Caveator) — Bombay HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

10-cst41-18.doc

¶2

vai

¶3

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

¶4

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.41 OF 2018 IN CAVEAT NO.347 OF 2017 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.492 of 2017

¶5

K. Subramanya Karanth ...Applicant

¶6

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :

¶7

Raghunandan U. Bangalorekar & Ors. V/s.

¶8

...Petitioners

¶9

K. Subramanya Karanth ...Respondent

¶10

Mr.Jagdish Hegde for the Applicant in the Chamber Summons.

¶11

Ms.Meena Shah for the Respondents / Original Petitioners.

¶12

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : 18TH DECEMBER, 2018.

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

By this chamber summons, the applicant (caveator) seeks condodnation of delay of 67 days wrongly mentioned as 154 days in prayer clause (a) of the chamber summons.

¶15

It is not in dispute that the caveat was served with citation on 11^th September, 2017 and the caveat was filed on 21^st September, 2017 i.e. within the time prescribed under the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules. The applicant had thereafter requested for

¶16

1/2

¶17

10-cst41-18.doc

¶18

a copy of the testamentary petition which was served upon the applicant's advocate on 21^st September, 2017.

¶19

In paragraphs 2 to 4 of the affidavit in support, the applicant has explained the delay in filing the affidavit in support of the caveat. I am inclined to accept such explanation in paragraphs 2 to 4 of the affidavit in support and condone the delay in filing the affidavit in support of the caveat.

¶20

For the reasons recorded in paragraphs 2 to 4 of the affidavit in support, the chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶21

Learned Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court is directed to accept the said affidavit on record and convert the testamentary petition into the testamentary suit. The applicant is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the original petitioner within two weeks from today and shall produce a proof of payment of costs to the learned Prothonotary & Senior. Learned Prothonotary & Senior Master shall accept the affidavit in support of the caveat on record only upon the applicant producing the proof of payment of costs.

¶22

The chamber summons is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶23

(R.D. DHANUKA, J.)

¶24

2/2

Raghunandan U. Bangalorekar and 2 Ors. v. K.Subramanya Karanth (Caveator)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunandan U. Bangalorekar and 2 Ors. v. K.Subramanya Karanth (Caveator)

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

Sanika Santosh Mhatre Vs Santosh Dattatrey Mhatre (Deceased)

The Springs Condominium Association of Apartment Owners and Anr. Vs Cbre South Asia Pvt. Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Babulal B. Jain Vs M/S. Esque Finmark Private Limited and 5 Ors.

Lavkush Suresh Gupta and 2 Ors. Vs Suresh Chandra Prakash Gupta (Deceased)

Dharmshi D. Bhanushali and 11 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay and 3 Ors.

Anant Sitaram Birje and Amit Anant Birje Vs Vithabai Sitaram Birje - Caveator