Allowed

Jahedabee Babulal Patel v. Naseer Sandu Shaikh and Others

Bombay HC9 Jul 2018WP/12326/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the non-appearance of original respondents and the petitioner's inability to condone a 64-day delay in filing a restoration application due to previous process fee default. The court allowed the petition, quashed the original dismissal order, and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,000 for a public hospital cause.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed and set aside, and the restoration application is allowed subject to depositing Rs. 2,000 for a public hospital cause.

Jahedabee Babulal Patel Vs Naseer Sandu Shaikh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

WP/12326/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 12326 OF 2017

¶5

JAHEDABEE BABULAL PATEL VERSUS NASEER SANDU SHAIKH AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Shaikh Kayyum Najir

¶7

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. Dated: July 09, 2018

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

Despite court notice, none has appeared for original respondents. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner / plaintiff.

¶10

The petitioner had preferred RCS No.553 of 2011 seeking administration of his estate. Process fees were not deposited and hence the suit was dismissed in default as per Order IX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 1.8.2013. An application - MARJI No.73 of 2013 was preferred on 3.10.2013 praying for condonation of delay in view of the limitation of 30 days being over. As such, barring the limitation period of 30 days, the delay caused in filing the application was of about 64 days.

¶11

WP/12326/2017

¶12

¶13

The law on condonation of delay has been crystallized by the Honourable Apex Court in the matter of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others [(1987) 2 SCC 107], and Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others [(2013) 12 SCC 649].

¶14

The petitioner would be rendered remediless if the delay is not condoned. The pleadings of the parties do not indicate that the petitioner desires to take undue advantage of the delay caused, inasmuch as, ulterior motives or laches are not attributed to her conduct. There would be multiplicity of litigation if the delay is not condoned as the petitioner would be required to knock the doors of the superior Court as has occurred in this proceeding.

¶15

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that being a lady of advanced age, she would prefer to deposit costs of Rs.2,000/in this Court.

¶16

Considering the above and keeping in view that the original defendants have failed to appear in these proceedings, I am of the view that the amount of costs of Rs.2,000/- could be

¶17

WP/12326/2017

¶18

¶19

donated to a public cause like the Government Hospital, at Aurangabad.

¶20

In the light of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.9.2017 passed by the trial Court is quashed and set aside and MARJI No.73 of 2013 is allowed subject to costs of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited on/or 25.7.2018 with the Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad,

¶21

through Medical Officer, High Court Dispensary, Aurangabad, either in cash or by Demand Draft (Demand Draft be drawn in the name of “ Dean, Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad - CSR Fund”) and shall report compliance of this direction by producing a receipt of having deposited the amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court on or before 31.7.2018.

¶22

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view as regards the restoration application filed by the petitioner, which now would be registered by the trial Court and would be considered on it's own merits.

¶23

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

¶24

akl/d

Jahedabee Babulal Patel v. Naseer Sandu Shaikh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahedabee Babulal Patel v. Naseer Sandu Shaikh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P H I Seeds Pvt. Ltd, Rangaredi, Andhra Pradesh Vs Shivaji Gangadhar Kadam and Another

P H I Seeds Pvt. Ltd, Rangaredi, Andhra Pradesh Vs Sanjay Dattatraya Joshi and Another

P H I Seeds Pvt. Ltd, Rangaredi, Andhra Pradesh Vs Kansraj Genuji Turkane and Another

Prakash Narsimhareddy Koyalwar Vs Vaijanti Rajesh Sikalwar and Others

Parasram Suka Jadhav Vs Prakash Dattaram Gedam and Another

Prashant Ambadas Dodke and Others Vs Prabhakar Khanderao Bhosle and Others