Allowed

Rameshchandra Sarju Prasad Gupta v. Ram S/O. Dadaji Gharat and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Oct 2021CAS/152/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court recalled an order dismissing a civil application for non-compliance with a cost payment order. Noting that the costs had been paid and an advocate had expired due to Covid-19, the court allowed the application to set aside the dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 10th January, 2019 passed in Civil Application No.1321 of 2018 was recalled, and the present Civil Application was allowed.

Rameshchandra Sarju Prasad Gupta Vs Ram S/O… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

ssm 1 6-cas152.19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.152 OF 2019
IN
R.C. NO. 47 OF 2017

¶5

Rameshchandra Sarju Prasad Gupta

¶6

…..Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Ram S/o. Dadaji Gharat & Ors.

¶9

…..Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Arjun Amanchi for the Applicant.
Ms. Anusha P. Amin for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 7.

¶11

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J.
 DATE : 22nd OCTOBER, 2021.

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

This is an Application for setting aside Order dated 10th
January, 2019 passed in Civil Application No.1321 of 2018 which was
dismissed for non-compliance of Order dated 3rd December, 2018.

¶14

2By Order dated 3rd December, 2018, passed in Civil Application
No.1321 of 2018, the predecessor-in-title of this Court had directed the
Applicant to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- within stipulated period for
condonation of delay in preferring the Second Appeal. As the said costs
were not paid within stipulated period, the said Civil Application No.1321
of 2018 was dismissed on 10th January, 2019 for non-compliance of Order
dated 3rd December, 2018.

¶15

1/2

¶16

ssm 2 6-cas152.19.doc

¶17

3Learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 7
submitted that, the Applicant has now paid the said costs in furtherance of
Order dated 3rd December, 2018 and therefore, the Order dated 6th
February, 2019 passed in this Application (Civil Application No.152 of
2019) now has been complied with.

¶18

4Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that, earlier
Advocate on record Mr. Navin Tiwari expired due to COVID-19 and because
of which there was lapses on the part of the Applicant in pursuing the
present matter.

¶19

In view thereof, Order dated 10th January, 2019 passed in Civil
Application No.1321 of 2018 is recalled and it is noted that, the Order
dated 3rd December, 2018 is complied with.

¶20

Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶21

 (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶22

Digitally signed SANJIV by SANJIVSHARNAPPA SHARNAPPA MASHALKAR MASHALKAR Date: 2021.10.26 15:06:42 +0530

¶23

2/2

Rameshchandra Sarju Prasad Gupta v. Ram S/O. Dadaji Gharat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshchandra Sarju Prasad Gupta v. Ram S/O. Dadaji Gharat 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

Ramesh Babaji Kadam Vs Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority and Ors.

Ramesh Babaji Kadam Vs Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority and Ors.

Mrs.Priti Sandeep Patel Vs Anil Amrchand Dalmia

Maruti Shankarrao Kitture Vs Veershaiva Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Padmakar Narayan Kulkarni Vs Veershaiva Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Adeshwar Murti Pujak Swetamber Jain Sangh Shree Thakurdwar Jain Shwtamber Murti Poojak Sangh Trust Vs Vasav Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.