Allowed

Shree Vithal Pandurang Mane v. Shree Ramchandra Pandurang Mane (Decd. Thr. Lrs) Shree Mahadev Ramchandra Mane and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Oct 2021IA/3556/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an interim application for restoration of a dismissed second appeal despite a 444-day delay, subject to the payment of ₹5,000 cost. The application to remove office objections was extended by three weeks contingent on payment.

What did the court decide?

Cost of ₹5,000 directed; relief granted subject to removal of office objections within three weeks.

Shree Vithal Pandurang Mane Vs Shree… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

 4-IA-3556-2020.odt

¶2

Osk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3556 OF 2020 IN

¶6

R.C. NO. 2168 OF 2019 SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO. 10122 OF 2018

¶7

Vithal Pandurang Mane… Applicant/Appellant
V/s.
Ramchandra Pandurang Mane
(Since deceased) Through LRs.
Mahadev Ramchandra Mane & Ors.… Respondents

¶8

Mr.Shekhar Jagtap a/w. Sairuchita Chowdhary, Ninad Naik, Rhea Francis and
Akash Pandey i/b. J. Shekhar & Co. for Applicant/Appellant.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J.
DATE : 20th October 2021.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1. This is an application for restoration of Second Appeal (St.) No.

¶12

10122 of 2018, which was dismissed for non removal of office objections

¶13

within stipulated period in pursuance of Order dated 17th October 2018
passed by the Registrar (Judicial-II).

¶14

There is a delay of 444 days in filing the present Application.

¶15

2. Perusal of Application would indicate that, sufficient cause is

¶16

made out for restoration of Second Appeal. However, in view of inordinate

¶17

delay and in the interest of justice, the Applicant is directed to pay a cost of

¶18

1/2

¶19

Osk 4-IA-3556-2020.odt

¶20

Rs.5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai within a
period of two weeks from today.

¶21

The Applicant/Appellant to pay/deposit the cost in the account
namely “High Court Legal Aid Fund”, Account No. 60045304283, IFSC-
MAHB0000002 of the Bank of Maharashtra, Branch-Fort, Mumbai-400032,
maintained by the High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai, Room No.
105, 1st Floor, PWD Building, High Court, Mumbai and to furnish the details of
such cost to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai and obtain the
receipt thereof physically or through Email i.e. [email protected]
which shall be the proof of such payment/deposit.

¶22

3.It is made clear that, payment of cost is condition precedent for
condonation of delay. The cost to be paid within a period of two weeks from
today.

¶23

4.Subject to payment of cost, delay is condoned and Application is
allowed in terms of prayer Clauses (b) and (c).

¶24

5.Appellant is directed to remove office objections, if not removed
till date, within a period of three weeks from the date of payment of cost.

¶25

6.Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶26

Digitally signed by OMKAR OMKARSHIVAHAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN KUMBHAKARN Date: 2021.10.21 15:20:04 +0530

¶27

2/2

Shree Vithal Pandurang Mane v. Shree Ramchandra Pandurang Mane (Decd. Thr. Lrs) Shree Mahadev Ramchandra Mane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Vithal Pandurang Mane v. Shree Ramchandra Pandurang Mane (Decd. Thr. Lrs) Shree Mahadev Ramchandra Mane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhukar Bhaskar Meher Vs the Municipal Corprotation of Greater Mumbai

Madhukar Bhaskar Meher and Ors. Vs the Municipal Corprotation of Greater Mumbai

M/S. Radium Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Fab Fashions, Property Firm of Smt. Smita Modi

Dashrth Machindra Kokare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gulab Raghunath Konde Thr. His Power of Attorney Holder Shri. Nana Gulab Konde Vs Sahebrao Raghunath Konde(Since Decd.Thr.Lrs) Shri. Kailas Sahebrao Konde and Ors.

Maharashtra State Co-Op. Marketing Federation Ltd. Bombay Vs Anandrao Haribhau Rabade