Allowed

Draupadi Shirodkar., v. Collector of North Goa, Govt. of Goa, Panaji.

Bombay HC5 Jul 2023MCA/107/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed an MCA to bring legal representatives on record of a writ petition despite 1061 days of delay. The court condoned the delay citing the petitioner's illness and Schedule Tribe status. The objection regarding heritable interest was left open for merits hearing, and the abatement was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The application is allowed subject to a cost of Rs.1,000/-, consequent amendments to be carried out within one week, and the Civil Application stands disposed of.

Draupadi Shirodkar., Vs Collector of North… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

27-MCA-107-2019.DOC

¶2

Andreza

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 107 OF 2019 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 117 OF 2019

¶5

Draupadi Shirodkar … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Collector of North Goa, Government of Goa, …Respondents Panaji.

¶8

Ms. Sonadevi Nishad, Advocate with Ms. P. Nagvenkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: M. S. KARNIK, J DATED: 5^th JULY 2023

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

2. This is an application for bringing the legal representatives of

¶14

the petitioner on record. The petitioner expired on 28.12.2015 leaving behind the legal heirs which are mentioned in paragraph 1 of the application. There is a delay of 1061 days in filing the application for bringing the legal heirs on record.

¶15

3. Learned Additional Government Advocate, Ms. Linhares,

¶16

opposed the application. According to her, the delay is not explained satisfactorily. My attention is invited to the reply filed by the respondents, where it is stated that the petition stands abated and

¶17

Page 1 of 3 5^th July 2023

¶18

27-MCA-107-2019.DOC

¶19

there is no question of setting aside the abatement. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot be brought on record as heir in this petition for the reason that the respondent granted lease of the property bearing Chalta no. 2, P.T. Sheet no. 17 situated at Ribander, to the late husband of the sole deceased-petitioner for a fixed period of five years without any intention to extend the period by renewing the lease agreement. It is contended that this property is required for public purpose and that the petitioner i.e. the late husband of the applicant was in unauthorised possession of Government land. It is further contended that it cannot be said that the applicant is the successor of her late husband and the right to sue continues in the applicant only because she is the wife of deceased petitioner.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the rejoinder which has been filed in response to the affidavit in reply. The applicant has stated that she belongs to a scheduled tribe community and has very little knowledge as regards to legal matters. In paragraph 5 of the rejoinder it has been stated that she was never informed by the Advocate that the legal heirs are required to be brought on record. It is further stated that the applicants had been periodically questioned about their status in the matter and until that time, the Advocate informed the applicant that the application for bringing legal heirs on record had to be filed.

¶21

Page 2 of 3 5^th July 2023

¶22

27-MCA-107-2019.DOC

¶23

5. I find force in the submission of learned counsel that as the applicant is illiterate belonging to the Schedule Tribe, the explanation offered be regarded as satisfactory in the interest of justice. In my opinion, delay in filing the application for bringing the legal representatives on record can be condoned for the reasons stated in the application and the rejoinder. The objection of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the legal representatives do not have heritable interest in the property, can be left open to be decided at the time of hearing of the petition on merits. All contentions raised by learned Additional Government Advocate as reflected in the affidavit in reply are kept open to be raised at the appropriate stage when the present petition is heard on merits. The abatement is set aside. The application is allowed subject to cost.

¶24

6. The application is allowed in terms of prayers clauses (a), (c) and (d), subject to cost of Rs.1,000/-.

¶25

7. Consequent amendments to be carried out within one week from today.

¶26

8. Civil Application stands disposed of.

¶27

M. S. KARNIK, J

¶28

Digitally signed by ANDREZA ANDREZA PEREIRA PEREIRA Date: 2023.07.05 19:11:12 +05'30'

¶29

Page 3 of 3 5^th July 2023

Draupadi Shirodkar., v. Collector of North Goa, Govt. of Goa, Panaji.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Draupadi Shirodkar., v. Collector of North Goa, Govt. of Goa, Panaji.

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

Kapil Vishnu Sardessai Vs Vpk Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. Rep. by Prabhakar Rama Gaude

Mohan Namdev Uskaikar and Anr. Vs Malini Mavli Uskaikar and 17 Ors.

F. a. Enterprises vs Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation and 2 Ors.

Mr. Sazu R. S. Nadkarni Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.

Goa Industrial Development Corporation, Thr. Its Managing Director, Mekala Chaityana Prasad Vs Goretti Leonilda Sobrinho Silveira and Anr.

Sandeep Kumar Indrakumar Tiwari vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai