Partly allowed

Radha Gopikisan Sanstha Thr. President v. Ramlal Debulal Nagapure and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Feb 2020CAW/293/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of connected civil applications not pressed by the petitioner. It allowed civil applications to condone delay for restoring a writ petition and corrected respondent names. One miscellaneous matter was listed for future steps.

What did the court decide?

Delay in restoration application condoned; petition restored; respondent names corrected in connected petitions; applications disposed of as not pressed.

Radha Gopikisan Sanstha Thr. President Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

901 WP 1521-2012.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 291 OF 2020 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 292 OF 2020 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 293 OF 2020

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1521 OF 2012

¶7

Radha Gopikisan Sanstha, A registered Public Trust through President Bajrang Shrinivas Agrawal

¶8

...Versus…

¶9

Ramlal Debulal Nagapure and others

¶10

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

Shri C.R. Sharma, Counsel for petitioner. M s. Geeta Tiwari, Counsel for respondent No.9 Shri S.S. Shingane, Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 8

¶14

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 25/02/2020

¶15

Mr. C. R. Sharma, learned Counsel for petitioner, makes a statement, that he is not pressing civil application Nos. 291/2020 and 292/2020 and 293/2020. The statement is accepted. The above Civil applications are therefore, disposed of as not pressed.

¶16

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2326 OF 2019

¶17

The application seeks to condone the delay of 1584 days caused in filing application for restoration of the

¶18

901 WP 1521-2012.odt

¶19

¶20

petition as against the respondent No.7, which came to be dismissed by an order dated 29/07/2015.

¶21

The learned Counsel Mr. S.S. Shingane, submits, that he is appearing for the respondent No.7 in other connected petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 4426/2016, and the correct name of the respondent No.7, is Manoj Namdeorao Lilhare.

¶22

The learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore, requests that leave be granted to correct the name of the respondent No.7 to Manoj Namdeorao Lilhare.

¶23

Leave is accordingly granted. The correction be made forthwith.

¶24

Considering the fact that the petition was already admitted, the delay occasioned in filing the application for restoration, though opposed by Shri S.S. Shingane, who waives notice for respondent No.7, is condoned for the reasons stated in the application.

¶25

The civil application is allowed and disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶26

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3321 OF 2019

¶27

Since the delay in filing the application for restoration is condoned, accepting the reasons stated in the application, the order dated 29/07/2015, in spite of opposition by learned Counsel, Shri S.S. Shingne, who waives

¶28

901 WP 1521-2012.odt

¶29

¶30

notice for respondent No.7, is set aside and the petition is restored as against the respondent No.7.

¶31

Civil application is allowed and disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO. 1521 OF 2012

¶33

On an oral request made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, leave is granted to correct the name of the respondent No.7, in the petition as Manoj Namdeorao Lilhare. The correction be carried out forthwith.

¶34

Mr. S S. Shingne learned Counsel for the respondent No.7, waives notice.

¶35

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2, Mr. Shyamlal Debulal Nagapure, has since passed away on 06/05/2013, and therefore, appropriate application shall have to be moved, for which he will take appropriate steps.

¶36

List the matter on 11/03/2020 for appropriate steps, as may be deemed necessary by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶37

Mr. S.S. Shingane, learned for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 6 and 7, to satisfy the office regarding the other objections.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

J.Pethe

Radha Gopikisan Sanstha Thr. President v. Ramlal Debulal Nagapure and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Gopikisan Sanstha Thr. President v. Ramlal Debulal Nagapure and Ors.

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

Dadaji Parasram (Parsu) Asutkar and Others Vs Pundlik Jayram Gokhare and Others

Bhaskarrao Amburao Ghuge (Since Dead) Thr. Lrs Mangesh S/O Bhaskarrao Ghuge and Others Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and Others

M/S Niraj Food Products, Thr. Its Proprietor Niraj S/O Dhirajlal Khakhkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Nagpur and Others

Nandkishor Mahadeo Jane and Others Vs Naib Tahsildar and Executive Magistrarte and Mamlatdar, Khamgaon and Others

Radha Gopikisan Sanstha Thr. President Vs Ramlal Debulal Nagapure and Ors.

Radha Gopikisan Sanstha Thr. President Vs Ramlal Debulal Nagapure and Ors.