Allowed

Dayanand Vaijinathappa Swami v. Ravindra Sontakke and Another

Bombay HC4 Oct 2019CA/11858/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Aurangabad allowed Civil Application seeking condonation of 126-day delay in filing restoration application and quashing of refusal to register Contempt Petition, noting casual prosecution of writ petition. Ordered petitioner to circulate petition before appropriate Bench within two weeks; recalled restoration if not complied with.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed subject to circulation of petition before appropriate Bench within two weeks and correction of typographical error; failure to act within two weeks results in recall of restoration

Dayanand Vaijinathappa Swami Vs Ravindra Sontakke… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

11858.19ca

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11858 OF 2019
IN

¶5

 CONTEMPT PETITION (ST.) NO.39249 OF 2017
 (R.C. NO.1411 OF 2018)
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 7044 OF 2017

¶6

Dayanand s/o Vaijinathappa SwamiPETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Mr. Ganesh Bhaskar Chaudhari & anrRESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr Mahesh C. Swami, Advocate for the petitioner;

¶10

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

¶11

DATED :4th OCTOBER, 2019

¶12

ORAL ORDER:

¶13

The present civil application is filed seeking
condonation of delay of 126 days in filing restoration

¶14

petition and it is further prayed that the order dated
8th October, 2018 passed by Registrar (Judl.) of this
Court thereby refusing registration of Contempt Petition
(St.)No.392349 of 2017 be quashed and set aside.

¶15

2.Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant -

¶16

petitioner submitted that there was a minor objection
raised by the office in reference to the status of
respondent No.1 and objection was in respect to the wrong
registration number of writ petition in memo. It is
submitted that the same is merely a typographical error.
Though learned Counsel vehemently submitted that refusal
of registration was only on technical grounds and further
time granted to the applicant-petitioner to remove
objection by correcting writ petition number but perusal
of the documents placed on record, we found that the
applicant-petitioner was utterly casual in prosecuting
his petition but approached this Court in unusual haste
to file the contempt petition.

¶17

3.The Writ Petition was filed in the year 2017.

¶18

The learned Vacation Judge passed an interim order in
favour of the petitioner while issuing notice. Notices
were made returnable on 14th June, 2017. On a query made

¶19

to learned Counsel for the applicant-petitioner, he

¶20

submits that post order dated 2nd June, 2017 the writ
petition was never placed before the Division Bench for
further consideration. As such, the applicant-petitioner
had no opportunity to pray for continuation of the
interim order.

¶21

4.In view of these facts, we allow the application
subject to the applicant-petitioner taking appropriate
steps for circulation of the petition before the
appropriate Bench within two weeks from today. The
applicant - petitioner is permitted to correct the
typographical error in the contempt petition. If the
applicant - petitioner fails to take steps within two
weeks, the order passed by this Court restoring contempt
petition stands recalled without further reference to the
Court.

¶22

 [AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE,J.]

¶23

Tupe

Dayanand Vaijinathappa Swami v. Ravindra Sontakke and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayanand Vaijinathappa Swami v. Ravindra Sontakke and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gangamai Education Trusts through Its Chairman Manohar Dattatraya Patil and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

M/S Bhaskara Agencies through Partner Vs Union of India and Others

M/S Renuka Gas Services through Its Partner Vs Union of India and Others

Shankar Tatyaba Sangle and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas Shivdas Padwal and Ors. Vs Mr. Maheshkumar v. Meghmale and Anr.

Vijaykumar Nilkanth Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others