This court allowed an interim application by applicants to bring legal heirs of a deceased respondent on record. The court distinguished a Supreme Court precedent relied upon by the opposing counsel and mandated amendment within two weeks.
Prayer clauses (a) and (b) allowed; amendment to be carried out within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
908-ia-18054-2022 .doc
Sonali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Digitally signed by CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SONALI SONALI MILIND MILIND PATIL PATIL Date: 2023.01.11 17:20:12 +0530 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 18054 OF 2022
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 18054 OF 2022 IN
SECOND APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2023
Ikbal Hamid Kotwadekar & Ors. ...Applicants Versus Hasanminya Abdullah Kotwadekar & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Tanmay Vispute, h/f. Mr. Onkar Warange and Ms. Nilima Sarvagod, for the Applicants.
Mr. Malhar Bageshwar, i/b. Mr. Sanjiv Sawant, for the Respondents.
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 11th JANUARY 2023
P.C. :
the Applicants and Mr. Malhar Bageshwar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.
2020 and the application is taken out on 28th July 2022. The
Applicants have stated that this Court by order dated 5th March
1/3
908-ia-18054-2022 .doc
Sonali
2021 issued notice to the Respondents and as per the Bailiff’s report, inter alia the Respondent No.24 was reported to be dead and therefore, the Applicants came to know about the death of Respondent No.24. Certain reasons are set out in the application about the Applicants being not aware about the legal provisions of bringing on record heirs of deceased Respondent No.24 and health problem of the Applicants.
counsel appearing for the Respondents have relied, in that case,
1 Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054-2055/2022
2/3
908-ia-18054-2022 .doc
Sonali
the learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that no sufficient reasons are assigned and inspite of such conclusion has condoned the delay. The said decision of the Supreme Court will not apply to the present case.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether sufficient reasons were assigned by the applicants to condone delay in bringing deceased respondent's heirs on record.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lingeswaran Etc. vs. ThirunagalingamDistinguished¶20
Lingeswaran Etc. vs. Thirunagalingam (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.2054-55 of 2022)
Madhav J. Jamdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
