Allowed

Indu Tanaji Dhere v. Ganpat Shankar Pansare

Bombay HC9 Jan 2023IA/1203/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an interim application for condonation of delay in a testamentary suit. The court rejected allegations of advocate's inadvertence as insufficient without details, accepted the explanation provided, and extended the deadline to remove office objections.

What did the court decide?

The interim application for condonation of delay was allowed; the office objections were to be removed by 7th February, 2023, without any costs.

Indu Tanaji Dhere Vs Ganpat Shankar Pansare — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

5.ia.1203-2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1203 OF 2022

¶3

¶4

CHAMBER ORDER (ST.) NO. 264 OF 2019 IN

¶5

TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 87 OF 2016

¶6

Vasundhara Pansare	...Deceased
Indu Tanaji Dhere	...Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Indu Tanaji Dhere	...Petitioner/Plaintiff
Vs.
Ganpat Shankar Pansare	...Respondent

¶7

Adv. Bhagyashri Ronade i/b. Adv. Sachin Pawar for the Applicant. None for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 09th JANUARY, 2023

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1. By the present Interim Application the Applicant is seeking (a)

¶11

condonation of delay of a period of 909 days and (b) setting aside of the order

¶12

dated 17th June, 2019 passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master, High Court

¶13

(Original Side), Bombay, in Chamber Order (L) No. 264 of 2019 which reads

thus,

A.B.Kakde 1/4

5.ia.1203-2022.doc

“Applicants and/or their Advocates to remove office objections on the Chamber Order and to get the same numbered and/or registered on or before 08.07.2019, failing Chamber Order to stand rejected under 986 of O.S. Rule for non-compliance of office objections.”

¶18

One of the grounds on which, condonation of delay has been

¶19

sought for (paragraph (e) of the Interim Application) is on account of

¶20

the alleged inadvertence of the previous Advocate of the Applicant. A

¶21

perusal of paragraph (e) shows that other than the bald allegation of inadvertence on the part of the previous Advocate, no other details whatsoever, have been given.

¶22

I find that in several matters, where condonation of delay is

¶23

sought for, it has become fashion to blame the previous Advocate without giving any details of the alleged inadvertence. This is a practice which must necessarily be deprecated and not encouraged.

¶24

The person against whom allegations are made does not have any

¶25

opportunity to deal with and/or refute them. In the event that a party

¶26

pleads such negligence/inadvertence on the part of the advocate,

¶27

details of the same ought to be clearly stated, so that the Court can

¶28

A.B.Kakde 2/4

¶29

5.ia.1203-2022.doc

¶30

apply its mind to the same. Merely stating that there was negligence /

¶31

inadvertence on the part of the previous advocate without stating anything more would by itself not sufficient cause.

¶32

The Court made its displeasure known to the learned Advocate

¶33

appearing on behalf of the Applicant. The learned Advocate for the Applicant apologized and sought leave to delete paragraph (e) of the Interim Application. Liberty was granted to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and paragraph (e) of the Application was deleted forthwith. In the light of this paragraph (e) is deleted and expunged from the record.

¶34

The learned Counsel for Applicant then invited my attention to

¶35

paragraphs (f) and (g) of the said Interim Application which set out the reasons for the delay in filing the present Interim Application.

¶36

I find that what stated in the said paragraphs, sufficient cause

¶37

has been made out to condone the delay. I also find that no prejudice would be caused if the delay is condoned and the Applicant is granted one last chance to comply with the order dated 17th June 2019 and to

¶38

A.B.Kakde 3/4

¶39

5.ia.1203-2022.doc

¶40

remove the Office Objections.

¶41

The present Interim Application is allowed.

¶42

At this stage the Court was inclined to impose the cost in the

¶43

matter, however, on being informed that the Applicant is a Housewife,

¶44

cost will not be imposed in the matter.

¶45

The Interim Application for condonation of delay is allowed in

¶46

terms of Prayer Clauses (b) and (c) which read as under:-

¶47

(b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 909 days in preferring this Interim Application.

¶48

(c) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased by learned Prothonotary & Senior Master, High Court (Original Side.), Bombay, in chamber order no. 264 of 2019 of Testamentary Suit No. 87 of 2016 thereby restoring the said Chamber Order.

¶49

Time to comply with the office objections is extended up to and

¶50

including 7th February, 2023.

¶51

Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶52

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J)

¶53

A.B.Kakde 4/4

Indu Tanaji Dhere v. Ganpat Shankar Pansare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indu Tanaji Dhere v. Ganpat Shankar Pansare

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

Sri Prasad Prabhu Vs Murur Ravindra Prabhu (Deceased)

Murur Venkatesh Prabhu Vs Murur Radha Krishna Prabhu (Deceased)

Chinmay Raghuram Prabhu and and Anr. Vs Sitha Janakiraman Iyer (Deceased)

Ambrish H. Soni vs Chetan Narendra Dhakan

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. vs Hema Engineering Industries Limited and 2 Ors.

Nilam Ravindra Bane Vs Ravindra Babaram Bane (Deceased)