Allowed

Mrs Savita Dattatray Karandikar Since Deceased Bharati Dattatray Karandikar and Anr. v. Shekhar Sadashiv Karandikar (Deceased Thr. Lrs.)Meeta S.Karandikar and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Mar 2022IA/902/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed a civil application seeking restoration of a first appeal by condoning delay in a family dispute and allowed an interim application to bring legal representatives of a deceased appellant on record, subject to deposit of costs and amendment of memo within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Civil Application No. 1219/2019 allowed and made absolute; Interim Application No. 902/2022 allowed; costs of Rs. 5000/- to be deposited; amendments to appeal memo to be carried out within four weeks.

Mrs Savita Dattatray Karandikar Since Deceased Bharati Dattatray… — Partition | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

(25)-IA-902-2022 & CAF-1219-2019 in FA-58-2004.doc

¶2

30.03.2022

¶3

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD NAJEEB NAJEEB MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD QAYYUM QAYYUM Date: 2022.03.31 16:07:03 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

Interim Application No. 902 / 2022

¶7

¶8

First Appeal No. 58 / 2004

¶9

Mrs. Savita Dattatray Karandikar Since Deceased Bharati Dattatray Karandikar and Anr. … Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Shekhar Sadashiv Karandikar (Deceased Thr. LRS.) Meeta S. Karandikar and Ors. … Respondents

¶12

Alongwith

¶13

Civil Application (CAF) No. 1219 / 2019

¶14

¶15

First Appeal No. 58 / 2004

¶16

Dattatraya Sadashivkarandikar (Dead) Thr. LRS. 1.A) Mr. Shreeram Dattatraya Karandikar and Anr. … Applicants

¶17

Versus

¶18

Shekhar Sadashiv Karandikar (Deceased Thr. LRS.) Meeta S. Karandikar and Ors. … Respondents

¶19

¶20

Ms. Kalyani Bane i/by M/s Divekar & Co., Advocate for Applicants in IA & CAF.

¶21

Mr. Uday G. Jaguste, Advocate for Respondent No.1a to 1c in both applications.

¶22

¶23

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.

¶24

DATE : 30th MARCH, 2022.

¶25

1/3

¶26

Najeeb

¶27

(25)-IA-902-2022 & CAF-1219-2019 in FA-58-2004.doc 30.03.2022

¶28

P.C.

¶29

In view of the self operative order dated 20th February, 2017, First Appeal was dismissed. In November, 2017, Civil Application No. 1219/2019 was moved seeking restoration of appeal by condoning delay. Pending application, the Appellant No.2 passed away on 27th October, 2020. Thus, Interim Application No. 902/2022 (I.A. No.1838/2021) was moved to bring the legal representatives of deceased-Appellant No.2, on record.

¶30

Heard. Learned Counsel for the parties in both the applications.

¶31

Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents opposed the Civil Application No. 1219/2019. They have filed affidavit in reply, contending that, no sufficient cause, has been shown for condoning the delay.

¶32

In consideration of the nature of lis, wherefrom the First Appeal arose, it is apparent, the dispute is amongst the family members. Having regard to the facts of the case and in view of the reasons

¶33

2/3

¶34

Najeeb

¶35

(25)-IA-902-2022 & CAF-1219-2019 in FA-58-2004.doc 30.03.2022

¶36

stated in the application, I am inclined to condone the delay, subject to costs Rs. 5000/-, which the Appellant shall deposit with the High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today. Subject to depositing the costs and filing of paper book within four weeks, the Application No. 1219 is allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause A and B.

¶37

Insofar as Interim Application No. 902/2022 is concerned; in view of the reasons cited in the application, since right sue survives, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’. Consequential amendments to be carried out within four weeks from today. The Appellant shall serve the amended copy of the appeal memo on Counsel for the Respondent, soon after amendments are carried out.

¶38

Both the applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶39

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

¶40

3/3

¶41

Najeeb

Mrs Savita Dattatray Karandikar Since Deceased Bharati Dattatray Karandikar and Anr. v. Shekhar Sadashiv Karandikar (Deceased Thr. Lrs.)Meeta S.Karandikar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Savita Dattatray Karandikar Since Deceased Bharati Dattatray Karandikar and Anr. v. Shekhar Sadashiv Karandikar (Deceased Thr. Lrs.)Meeta S.Karandikar 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

Mr. Ramesh Jagannath Aggarwal and Ors. Vs Surendra S/O. Jagannath Aggarwal and Anr.

Mr. Ramesh Jagannath Aggarwal and Ors. Vs Surendra S/O. Jagannath Aggarwal and Anr.

Marathi Mission Vs Mrs. Nafisa Saleh Setranjiwala and Ors.

Dattatraya Sadashivkarandikar (DEAD)THR.LRS.1A)MR.SHREERAM Dattatraya Karandikar and Anr. Vs Shekhar S Karandikar (DEAD)THR.LRS.1A)SMT.MEETA Shekhar Karandikar and Ors.

Mr. Balkrishna Hanumanta Mane Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Mr. Kantaprasad Chourasiya Vs the Assistant Municipal Commissioner