Allowed

Sonaji Daji Dhole Lrs Tanabai and Others v. Murlidhar Yeshwant Kulkarni

Bombay HC7 Dec 2021CA/2123/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed Civil Application for condoning 112 days delay in filing Review Application regarding dismissed Second Appeal, noting substantive ground for condonation as applicants prosecuted remedy before Supreme Court before withdrawing SLP.

What did the court decide?

Civil Application for condonation of delay allowed; Review Application registered; notice to respondent issued returnable on 7th February, 2022.

Sonaji Daji Dhole Lrs Tanabai and Others Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2123 OF 2020
IN
REVIEW APPLICATION ST.NO.148 OF 2020
IN

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO.739 OF 2017

¶5

Sonaji s/o Daji Dhole (Deceased)
Through L.Rs. -

¶6

1.Tanabai w/o Sonaji Dhole
and Ors.= APPLICANT/s
(Orig.Plaintiff)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Murlidhar s/o Yeshwant Kulkarni= RESPONDENT
(Orig.Defendant)

¶9

Mr.AM Gholap, Advocate for Applicant/s;

¶10

Mr.NR Thorat, Advocate for Respondent(Absent).

¶11

 -----

¶12

CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.

¶13

RESERVED ON : 13/10/2021 PRONOUNCED ON : 07/12/2021

¶14

PER COURT :-

¶15

1.Present application has been filed for

¶16

condoning delay of 112 days caused in filing Review
Application.

¶17

2. Heard learned Advocate for applicants.

¶18

3.The applicants are original plaintiffs-

¶19

(2)

¶20

appellants in Second Appeal No.739/2017, which came
to be dismissed, on the ground that no substantial
question of law are arising in this case. The said
order was passed by this Court on 13.8.2019. The
applicants contend that they had approached the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, challenging the order passed
by this Court by filing Special Leave Petition,
however, that petition was withdrawn with
permission of the Court to enable them to file
Review Application. That order was passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court on 16.12.2019. As the applicants
were prosecuting the proceeding before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court bonafide and diligently, there is
delay which is unintentional and, therefore, it is
said that the delay be condoned.

¶21

4.Since learned Advocate for the respondent
is absent, but it is seen from the record that the
applicants, who were prosecuting their remedy
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and then after
getting the liberty, they want to file Review
Petition, there is a good ground for condoning the

¶22

delay. In view of the fact that the learned
Advocate for the respondent is absent on the day,

¶23

(3)

¶24

submissions were heard for the applicants, it would
be appropriate to place the matter for submissions
on Review Petition, by issuing notice of Review
Application to the respondent. Hence, following
order, -

¶25

ORDER

¶26

i.TheCivilApplication
No.2123/2020 for condonation of delay
stands allowed and disposed of;

¶27

ii.Registry to verify and register
the Review Application.

¶28

iii.Issue notice to the respondent,
returnable on 7th February, 2022.

¶29

(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI)
 JUDGE

¶30

BDV

Sonaji Daji Dhole Lrs Tanabai and Others v. Murlidhar Yeshwant Kulkarni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonaji Daji Dhole Lrs Tanabai and Others v. Murlidhar Yeshwant Kulkarni

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

Hanmant Bapurao Bhadre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Shivlal Waghade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gulab Laxman Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balasaheb Namdev Wagh Vs Raghunath @ Malhari Bansi Alhat and Another

Atish @ Ashish Ashok Khandare and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Syed Ali Akbar Hashmi S/O. Syed Fayazoddin Hashmi Vs the State of Maharashtra