Allowed

Rajeshwari Lachayya Manchala and Shrinivas L. Manchala v. Lachaiah Rajaiah Manchala @ Lachchayya R. Manchala (Deceased)

Bombay HC30 Nov 2023NMT/6/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay allowed the restoration of a dismissed probate petition despite a 300-day delay, condoning the lapse in view of subsequent legal heir consent affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Notice of motion granted; delay condoned; probate petition restored to file subject to removal of further objections within six weeks.

Rajeshwari Lachayya Manchala and Shrinivas L. Manchala Vs Lachaiah… — Partition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

9.NMT.6.2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

¶3

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 06 OF 2022 IN

¶4

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 1442 OF 2016

¶5

Lachaiah Rajaiah Manchala ...Deceased

¶6

Rajeshwari Lachayya Manchala & Anr. ...Applicants/Petitioners ***

¶7

 Mr. Waquar Ahmed, for Petitioner (Through V.C.) ***

¶8

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 30^th NOVEMBER, 2023.

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI

¶11

Digitally signed bySHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Date: 2023.12.01 16:47:08 +0530

¶12

By this notice of motion, the original Petitioners are seeking restoration of the probate petition, which stood dismissed on account of failure to remove office objections within the time period specified by this Court.

¶13

This was in pursuance of an order dated 02^nd May, 2018, passed by this Court in the present petition and other such petitions.

¶14

There is delay of 300 days in moving the notice of motion.

¶15

The learned Counsel appearing in support of the notice of motion submits that one particular office objection could not be removed, as it pertained to the necessity of placing on record consent affidavit of one of the legal heirs of the deceased. The other legal heirs had already given their consent affidavits, which were placed on record alongwith the petition.

Page1 of 3

Shrikant Malani

9.NMT.6.2022.doc

It is submitted that subsequent to dismissal of the probate petition, the only remaining legal heir of the deceased did give consent affidavit dated 12^th April, 2019 and the same was subsequently placed on record of this Court.

¶20

It is submitted that the process of obtaining the consent affidavit took some time, as a consequence of which, the restoration application could not be moved within the period of limitation.

¶21

It is submitted that in the interest of justice, this Court may consider restoring the petition so that it could be considered on merits, particularly when consent affidavits of all the legal heirs are now on record and the Petitioners are ready to remove any further office objections that may be pointed out by the department.

¶22

This Court finds that although the order by virtue of which the probate petition stood dismissed, also observed that this petition and other such petitions could not be restored thereafter, in view of the facts and circumstances brought to the notice of this Court in the present case, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice that the prayers made in the notice of motion are favourably considered.

¶23

This is particularly in the light of the fact that the only

Page2 of 3

Shrikant Malani

9.NMT.6.2022.doc

remaining legal heir has given consent affidavit dated 12^th April, 2019, which has been already placed on record on behalf of the Petitioners.

¶28

In view of the above, the notice of motion is granted. Delay is condoned and the probate petition is restored to file, subject to the Petitioners removing further office objections, if any, within a period of six weeks from today.

¶29

Notice of Motion stands disposed of.

¶30

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶31

Page3 of 3

¶32

Shrikant Malani

Rajeshwari Lachayya Manchala and Shrinivas L. Manchala v. Lachaiah Rajaiah Manchala @ Lachchayya R. Manchala (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshwari Lachayya Manchala and Shrinivas L. Manchala v. Lachaiah Rajaiah Manchala @ Lachchayya R. Manchala (Deceased)

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

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited vs G-Next Media Private Limited

Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs Standard Chartered Bank and Anr.

Siddika Solanki through Constituted Attorney Rakesh Vinayak Sawant vs Varkey Overseas Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd., and 2 Ors.

Sakshi Sachin Chodankar Vs Sadguru Mahadev Vast (Deceased)

Theresa Anthony Dcunha Vs Francis Xavier Anthony Dcunha Alias Francis D Cunha (Deceased)

Theresa Anthony Dcunha Vs Ludovina Dcunha @ Ludovina D Chunha Widow of Francis Xavier Anthony Dcunha (Deceased)