Dismissed

Umarani D.Poddar., v. Shantidevi S. Jhuria andORS

Bombay HC5 Nov 2019S/3688/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay dismissed a suit that had abated because the sole plaintiff had died on 29 May 2017, no legal representatives were brought on record within the stipulated period, and the husband of the deceased plaintiff did not wish to prosecute it.

What did the court decide?

The suit is dismissed as abated, and all pending chamber summons and notices of motion are disposed of.

Umarani D.Poddar., Vs Shantidevi S. Jhuria… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1/2

¶2

8.1-s-3688-1996.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

SUIT NO. 3688 OF 1996

¶5

Umarani D. Poddar .. Plaintiff Vs. Shantidevi S. Jhuria & Ors. .. Defendants

¶6

None for plaintiff.

¶7

Mr.K.H. Mody for defendant-Jhuria.

¶8

Mr.Harshal Manik i/b Res Legal for defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(c).

¶9

Mr.R.R. Yadav for defendant No.5.

¶10

Mr. Sagar Patil for MCGM.

¶11

CORAM : N.J. JAMADAR, J.

¶12

DATE : 5^TH NOVEMBER 2019

¶13

P.C.

¶14

1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶15

2. The learned counsel for the defendant No.5 submits that the plaintiff-Umarani Durgaprasad Poddar has expired on 29^th May 2017. The deceased plaintiff was the wife of the defendant No.5. The legal representatives of the defendant No.5 have not been brought on record. In fact, Chamber Summons No.892 of 2017, taken out by one Shivangi Poddar-Patel, the daughter of the plaintiff and the defendant No.5, has subsequently been withdrawn. The defendant No.5-Durgaprasad Ramniwas Poddar does not intend to prosecute the suit in the capacity of the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. The suit, thus, stands abated.

¶16

Shraddha Talekar PS

¶17

2/2

¶18

8.1-s-3688-1996.doc

¶19

3. Shri K.H. Mody, the learned counsel for the defendant-Jhuria submits that the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff are not coming forward to prosecute the suit for the sole reason that they would be required to pay Court fees for the huge monetary claim. It was further submitted that during the pendency of the suit, various proceedings have been taken out by the plaintiff and, therefore, the defendants be properly compensated.

¶20

4. Be that as it may, as the sole plaintiff has expired on 29^th May 2017 and no steps have been taken to bring the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on record, within the stipulated period, and even the Chamber Summons taken out for impleading the daughter of the plaintiff has been withdrawn, and the defendant No.5, who happens to be the husband of the deceased plaintiff, does not desire to prosecute the suit, the suit stands abated.

¶21

5. Thus, the suit stands dismissed as abated.

¶22

6. In view of the dismissal of the suit, pending chamber summons and notice of motion, if any, do not survive and accordingly stand disposed of.

¶23

[ N.J. JAMADAR, J. ]

¶24

Shraddha Talekar PS

Umarani D.Poddar., v. Shantidevi S. Jhuria andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umarani D.Poddar., v. Shantidevi S. Jhuria andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Constructionco. and Anr. Vs Manjitsingh Sukhdevsingh Lamba and 2 Ors.and Sanjay Shivcharan Dunkudu and 2 Ors. (Pro. Defendants)

suresh mohanlal goradia Vs M/S Shah Construction Company Ltd. and Another

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs Urmila and Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Anna Mary Sebastian Rodrigues Vs the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and 6 Ors. and Anthony S Rodrigues-Applicant

Ajay Sohanlal Jhuria Vs Durgaprasad R. Poddar and Ors.

Sangita Arvind Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.