Partly allowed

Rajendra Rasiklal Shah v. Smt. Tejkaur Shriram Juneja and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2023IA/30505/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected applications for bringing legal representatives due to excessive delay and lack of disclosure of death. Simultaneously, it recalled an order dismissing the main civil revision application for want of prosecution and restored the file, deleting the deceased applicant.

What did the court decide?

Rejected applications I.A. Nos. 388 and 4729; recalled order dismissing C.R.A. No. 671 of 2008; restored C.R.A. to file with deceased applicant deleted.

Rajendra Rasiklal Shah Vs Smt. Tejkaur Shriram… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

904-IA-30505-2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.30505 OF 2022 WITH

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.388 OF 2023
IN

¶6

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.671 OF 2008

¶7

Rajendra Rasiklal Shah…Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Dilip Madhavlal Shah...Applicant
Versus
 Tejkaur Shriram Juneja And Ors....Respondents

¶8

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4729 OF 2023

¶9

IN

¶10

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.617 OF 2008

¶11

Manjulaben Dilip Shah And Ors....Applicants

¶12

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Dilip Madhavlal Shah...Applicant
Versus
 Tejkaur Shriram Juneja And Ors....Respondents

¶13

******

¶14

Ms. Panthi Desai i/by M. P. Vashi and Associates for the Applicant.
Mr. Ketan A. Chothani, a/w. Mr. Nishant Chothani, Ms. Gayatri Kapse
and Ms. Pradnya Pokale for the Respondents.

¶15

******

¶16

CORAM :N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATED : 6 SEPTEMBER 2023

¶17

Sayyed

¶18

1 / 3

¶19

904-IA-30505-2022.doc

¶20

P.C. :

¶21

1.The applicant No.2 in Civil Revision Application No. 671 of 2008
has filed the Interim Application No.30505 of 2022 for restoration of
the Civil Revision Application, which was dismissed on 22 November
2021 for want of prosecution.

¶22

2.One Dilip Shah was applicant No.1 in the said Civil Revision
Application. The application for restoration, however, came to be filed
without disclosing the fact that said Dilip Shah had expired much prior
to filing of the restoration application, i.e., on 23 June 2017. The
contesting respondent thus objected to restoration of Civil Revision
Application at the instance of applicant No.2 only. In view of said
objection, applicant No.1 has filed the application being Interim
Application No. 388 of 2023 for bringing legal representatives of said
Dilip Shah. The contesting respondent objected to the maintainability
of said application on the ground that the consent of legal
representatives is not obtained. The legal representatives of said Dilip
Shah, thus filed Interim Application No. 4279 of 2023.

¶23

3. As regards Interim Application Nos.388 of 2023 and 4729 of
2023, there is a delay of more than five years and the only explanation
for the said delay is that they were not aware about legal formalities.
Even if this explanation is accepted, however, still the fact remains that
no application was made for bringing legal representatives of the said

¶24

Sayyed

¶25

2 / 3

¶26

904-IA-30505-2022.doc

¶27

Dilip Shah at the time of filing of restoration application. On the
contrary, the fact of death of said Dilip Shah was not even disclosed in
the restoration application. Considering the overall facts and
circumstances, the Interim Application Nos.388 of 2022 and 4729 of
2023 are rejected.

¶28

4.As regards the restoration of Civil Revision Application, for the
reasons stated in the Interim Application No.30505 of 2022, the order
passed by this Court dated 22 November 2021 is hereby recalled. The
Civil Revision Application No. 671 of 2008 is restored to file. The
applicant No.1 Dilip Shah, however, shall be deleted from the array of
the parties.

¶29

5.Applicant No.2 is permitted to file application for adjournment
before the Executing Court. If such application is filed, the learned
Executing Court shall adjourn the execution proceedings after 6
October 2023.

¶30

6.List the Civil Revision Application No. 671 of 2008 for final
hearing on 6 October 2023 at 2:30 p.m.

¶31

7. All the Interim Applications are disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶32

Sayyed

¶33

3 / 3

Rajendra Rasiklal Shah v. Smt. Tejkaur Shriram Juneja and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Rasiklal Shah v. Smt. Tejkaur Shriram Juneja 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

Krishna Subarao Suryavanshi (Since Decd.Thr.Lrs) Sharada Krishna Suryavanshi and Ors. Vs Shivaji Subhan Nanavadekar (Since Decd.Thr.Lrs) Kamala Shivaji Nandavadekar and Ors.

Kusum Dattatraya Kutte Vs Gulam Hussain Bagwan Decd Thr. Lhrs Nasim Gulam Hussain Bagwan and Ors.

Satyabhushan Thakardas Madan Decd. Thr. Lhrs and Anr. Vs Abhijit Ashok Subandh

Balu Jivanna Patil(Sandi) Since Decd.Thr.Lrs Shri. Jivanna Ballappa Patil Vs Dattu Govind Patil (Since Decd.Thr.Lrs) Shri. Maruti Dattu Patil and Ors.

Dilip Madhavlal Shah (Deceased) Thr. Lrs Manjulaben Dilip Shah and Ors. Vs Smt. Tejkaur Shriram Juneja and Ors.

Balu Jivanna Patil(Sandi) Since Decd.Thr.Lrs Shri. Jivanna Ballappa Patil Vs Dattu Govind Patil (Since Decd.Thr.Lrs) Shri. Maruti Dattu Patil and Ors.