Allowed

Shashikala Dhondiram Bandal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC1 Oct 2021CA/3521/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed an application for condonation of delay under Civil Application No. 3521 of 2019. The court found the 113-day delay explained by subsequent document retrieval sufficient for substantial justice, implicitly approving the technical grounds for delay.

What did the court decide?

Civil Application No. 3521 of 2019 allowed; delay of 113 days condoned; matter disposed of.

Shashikala Dhondiram Bandal Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 ca 3521.2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

901 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3521 OF 2019

¶4

IN

¶5

RAST/6604/2019

¶6

SHASHIKALA DHONDIRAM BANDAL

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶9

...

¶10

Advocate for Applicant:

¶11

Mr. Sandeep Kulkarni h/f. Mr. Sujeet D. Joshi
AGP for Respondents No. 1&3: Mrs. M. A. Deshpande
Advocate for Respondents No. 2&4 : Mr. V. S. Mote
Advocate for Respondent No. 5: Mr. Ashok R. Tapse

¶12

...

¶13

CORAM:S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE:01st OCTOBER, 2021

¶14

PER COURT:

¶15

1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant.

¶16

2. The learned Advocate for non-applicants no. 2

¶17

and 4 and learned Advocate for non-applicant no. 5
oppose the application on the ground that delay

¶18

has not been satisfactorily explained. The
applicant had never filed an application for
getting the documents. It was a third person who
had filed the application but the applicant has

¶19

2 ca 3521.2019

¶20

conveyed that it is the applicant who has filed
the application.

¶21

3.The ground mentioned in the application is
that the applicant could lay the hands on the
documents subsequently and after the documents
were procured after the dismissal of the petition
the present Review Application is filed. According
to the applicant, the applicant on the basis of
the documents procured subsequently could get the
knowledge that the non applicant no. 5 has not
worked for a period 14.02.2004 to 31.10.2006.

¶22

4.It is trite that the merits of the Review
Application need not be considered while
considering the application for condonation of
delay. The delay of 113 days is explained i.e.
the document received subsequently, though, may be
on the application of the third person.

¶23

5.The applicant is not to gain by causing

¶24

delay. It is trite that if, the technical
consideration and cause for substantial justice

¶25

3 ca 3521.2019

¶26

are pitted against each other the cause for
substantial justice has to be subserved.

¶27

6.For the reasons stated in the civil
application for condonation of delay, the civil
application is allowed in terms of prayer clause

¶28

"B". Delay is condoned.

¶29

7. Civil Application is disposed of.

¶30

marathe

Shashikala Dhondiram Bandal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikala Dhondiram Bandal v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Abdul Javed Abdul Habib Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nilewar Rajaram Shankarrao Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nahush Shamrao Selukar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bala Sampat Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Atul Bhausaheb Akare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sainath Pandurang Chougule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others