Dismissed

Smt.Vatsalabai Baban Dhumal v. Baban Jaywant Kad and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Oct 2021RPW/52/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Review Petition No. 52 of 2021, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition against a single judge's order regarding an appeal by condoning delay. The court observed the petitioner's inconsistent conduct, noting that issues raised in the review were never canvassed previously and were argued by a different advocate.

What did the court decide?

Review petition rejected with costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

Smt.Vatsalabai Baban Dhumal Vs Baban Jaywant… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Dusane

¶2

1/226 RPW 52.21 in WP 641.21.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE

¶5

Digitally signed by BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2021.10.25 19:18:21 +0530

¶6

REVIEW PETITION NO. 52 OF 2021

¶7

IN

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.641 OF 2021

¶9

Smt. Vatsalabai Baban Dhumal

¶10

....Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

Baban Jaywant Kad & Ors.

¶13

....
Respondents

¶14

Mr. Arif Doctor a/w Jacinta D’Silva for Petitioner
Mr. Sushant Prabhune for Respondent

¶15

Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
Date : 22nd OCTOBER, 2021

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

1. This Review Petition is taken out by the Petitioner seeking

¶18

review of the order dated 23rd February, 2021.

¶19

2.By the order under review, this Court has directed the
appellate Court to conclude the hearing of the application for
condonation of delay expeditiously and in any case within a period of
one month.

¶20

Dusane2/226 RPW 52.21 in WP 641.21.doc

¶21

3.Learned counsel for the Respondent, who is appearing for

¶22

the appellant before the Court below has urged that though his clients
were willing to argue the application for condonatin of delay of the
appeal, but the present Petitioner adjourned the same for six months on
the ground of pendency of this Review Petition before this Court.

¶23

4.Apart from above, in support of prayer of review therefore
never canvassed. The Petition was argued by different Advocate than
the one who is arguing present Review Petition. The above conduct on
the part of the Petitioner in moving Review Petition on such issues
which were never canvassed is required to be deprecated.

¶24

5.I see no reason, which warrants exercise of review
jurisdiction. The Review Petition stands rejected with costs of

¶25

Rs.2,000/-.

¶26

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Smt.Vatsalabai Baban Dhumal v. Baban Jaywant Kad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Vatsalabai Baban Dhumal v. Baban Jaywant Kad 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

Sande Joseph Chukavu Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mumtaz Alam Anwrali Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ahomo Efe Helen and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mrs. Suman Arun Kher Vs Lt.Col.(Retd.) Arun Kumar Kher

Nilesh Uttamchand Jain Vs Suchita Nilesh Jain

Jitendra Ramakant Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra