Allowed

Jivan S/O.Pandu Kapgate and Others v. Thakram S/O.Mohan Kosre and Others

Bombay HC13 Jan 2020CAS/315/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil application to implead legal heirs of a deceased respondent in a long-pending second appeal, condoning a delay of over 1533 days. The court rejected the appellant's request for a two-month adjournment but granted four weeks to appoint new counsel due to the incumbent's illness.

What did the court decide?

Civil application allowed; delay of 1533 days condoned; costs of Rs.5000/- directed; legal representatives to be impleaded within two weeks; adjournment for two months for counsel illness rejected but

Jivan S/O.Pandu Kapgate and Others Vs Thakram… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

CAS No.315/2019 in Second Appeal No. 213 OF 2005

¶4

Jivan s/o Pandu Kapgate and others

¶5

vs.

¶6

Shri Thakram s/o Mohan Kosre and others.

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Shri P.G.Anandikar, Advocate holding for Shri P.A.Markandeywar, Advocate for the Appellants. Mrs.S.C.Deo, Advocate for Respondent nos.1,2 and 4.

¶9

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATED : 13/01/2020.

¶10

Heard Shri P.G.Anandikar, learned counsel holding for Shri P.A.Markandeywar, learned counsel, who represents the Applicants/Appellants and Mrs. S.C.Deo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos.1, 2 and 4.

¶11

The present Civil Application has been taken out by the Appellants for bringing the legal heirs of deceased Respondent no.2 on record. Respondent no.2 expired on 31.5.2014. The names of his legal heirs are given in paragraph 3 of the application.

¶12

The Respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply to the application, inter alia, placing on record the denial in respect of the allegations made in the application

¶13

¶14

pertaining to information and notice, which was required to be given on/or received on/or exchanged between the parties.

¶15

Be that as it may, in the interest of justice, as also the present Second Appeal taking exception to the orders dated 17.4.2003 and 24.11.2004 has remained pending for such a long period of time, the present Civil Application can be disposed of by the following order:

¶16

(i) Civil Application is allowed, for the reasons stated in the application.

¶17

(ii) Delay of 1533 days is condoned, with a direction to pay costs of Rs.5000/- to the contesting Respondents. The abatement, if any, is set aside.

¶18

(iii) The names of legal representatives shall be impleaded and the Second Appeal shall be amended within a period of two weeks from the date of this order.

¶19

Considering the conduct and history of the Appellants in the past, it shall be required of them to carry out the amendment as directed. Mrs. Deo, learned counsel waives notices on behalf of the contesting Respondent nos.1, 2 and 4.

¶20

It has been informed by Shri P.A.Anandikar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants

¶21

¶22

that Advocate P.A.Markandewar who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the Appellants is indisposed due to ill-health and shall take two months to recover and attend this Court and therefore, this Court should adjourn the hearing of this case after two months.

¶23

Considering the exception taken to the orders passed in the years 2003 and 2004 and long passage of time, the request made by Shri Anandikar is rejected.

¶24

It shall be open for the Appellants to appoint fresh counsel/Advocate on record, if the existing counsel is not in a position to appear before the Court on the next date. As a matter of fact, because of the reason of indisposition of the learned counsel of the Appellants, time of four weeks is granted to enable the newly appointed Advocate/Counsel to take instructions from the appellants and prepare the case, so that the Court will be in a position to hear the matter on the next date.

¶25

Civil Application is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Ambulkar

Jivan S/O.Pandu Kapgate and Others v. Thakram S/O.Mohan Kosre and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jivan S/O.Pandu Kapgate and Others v. Thakram S/O.Mohan Kosre and Others

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

Yogesh S/O Narayanrao Deshpande Vs the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

Rashtriya Mul Niwasi Bahujan Karmachari Sangh, Chandrapur Thr. Its Secretary Vs Hotel Tri-Star Inn Pvt. Ltd., Chandrapur Thr. Its General Manager

Adivasi Seva Sangh vs Lodha Impression Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., and Ors.

Executive Engineer, Lower Wardha Project Division, Wardha Vs Vikas Vigyanchand Jain and 2 Others

The Executive Engineer, Bembla Project Office, Yavatmal Vs Vijay Motiramji Dhabale and Others

Kumud Wd/O Sanjay Gotmare and 3 Others Vs Mohd. Asif Mohd. Rafique and Another