A court rejected a plea for further extension of time in a review petition. The petitioner had previously been granted time to deposit an amount but failed to comply, leading to the dismissal of the present applications for indulgence.
Dismissal of Review Petition No. 1 of 2018 and Civil Application No. 362 of 2018.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2-rpn-1-18-cao-362-18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. 1 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 362 OF 2018 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 376 OF 2017 IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 234 OF 2017
Suhas B. Samant Versus
Ganpat S. Shete and ors.
...Petitioner/Applicant
...Respondents
Ms Pratima Saundalkar I/b Ms Rushita Jain for the Petitioner/Applicant.
Mr. Ajit Karwande for the Respondents.
CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 23.07.2018.
P.C. (In Chamber)
1] Heard Ms Pratima Saundalkar, learned counsel for the
petitioner/applicant.
2] By Civil Application No. 362 of 2018, once again, extension of time is applied for. By order dated 16.4.2018, subject to the applicant/petitioner's filing an undertaking that he will deposit the amount of Rs.4 lakhs positively within three months, extension was granted. The undertaking was filed but no amount has been deposited.
D.S.Sherla page 1 of 3
2-rpn-1-18-cao-362-18
3] On the previous occasion also the reasons stated in the review petition were in the context of health of applicant's wife. In the order dated 16.4.2018, it was noted that even the reasons/grounds set out in the review petition were entirely misconceived and appeared to be nothing, but an attempt to take advantage of indulgence shown to the applicant/petitioner from time to time.
4] Even this time, learned counsel for the applicantpetitioner, made a plea that at least four weeks extension be granted. Since, indulgence has been shown on several occasions earlier, it is not possible to continue with the indulgence.
5] Learned counsel for the respondents points out that on 20.4.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the special leave petition instituted by the applicant/petitioner has granted time to the applicant/petitioner to vacate the premises till 31.7.2018, subject to filing of usual undertaking with the Registry of the Hon'ble Supreme Court within one week.
This special leave petition as well as the pending applications have also been disposed of.
D.S.Sherla page 2 of 3
2-rpn-1-18-cao-362-18
6] Taking into consideration of the aforesaid
circumstances, it is not possible to show any further indulgence in this matter. Accordingly, Review Petition No. 1 of 2018 and Civil Application No. 362 of 2018 therein, are hereby dismissed.
7] Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, no order is made as to the costs.
(M.S. SONAK, J.)
Dinesh Sadanand Sherla
Digitally signed by Dinesh Sadanand Sherla Date: 2018.07.23 17:11:51 +0530
D.S.Sherla page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an undertaking filed by the petitioner was sufficient to warrant an extension of time when no deposit was made.
Whether further indulgence could be granted given repeated failures to comply with earlier extension conditions.
Suhas B. Samant
Ganpat S. Shete
M. S. SONAK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
