Allowed

Mr. Shivram Rajaram Fendre Decd Thru Lhrs /Lrs v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Sept 2023WP/8643/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court, Bombay allowed this Writ Petition challenging the dismissal of a Revision Application by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order due to non-appearance of respondents and restored the matter to the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal Order dated 28 August 2019 set aside; Revision Petition No.52 of 2018 restored to Tribunal.

Mr. Shivram Rajaram Fendre Decd Thru Lhrs /Lrs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

39-WP-8643-2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 8643 OF 2022

¶4

Mr. Shivram Rajaram Fendre Deceased Through his Legal Heirs 1.A) Smt. Sangita Shivram Fendre and Ors. ...Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Pravin Dabade i/by Mr. Ganesh Patil, for Petitioners. Mr. C.D. Mali, A.G.P., for Respondent No.1- State.

¶8

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 07, 2023.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

By this Petition, Petitioners challenge order dated 28 August 2019 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai dismissing the Revision Application No.03 of 2001 on account of failure on the part of the Petitioners to deposit cost of Rs.2,000/- imposed vide order dated 19 July 2019.

¶11

Learned Counsel for Petitioners would draw my attention to the

¶12

receipt dated 3 April 2019 by which the Petitioners had apparently deposited cost of Rs.2,000/- before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Bar Association. He

¶13

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALILIYAKAT LIYAKATJAMADARDate: JAMADAR 2023.09.1112:05:00 +0530

1/2

S. L. JAMADAR

39-WP-8643-2022.doc

would submit that, though the cost was already deposited on 3 April 2019, this factom was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal on 28 August 2019 when the revision came to be dismissed.

¶18

This Court had issued notice to the Respondents on 22 July 2019. It appears that the Respondents are served. However, none appears for them.

¶19

In my view, considering the limited issue raised in the present

¶20

Petition, the same need not be kept pending for appearance on behalf of Respondents.

¶21

The present Petition is accordingly allowed.

¶22

Tribunals Order dated 28 August, 2019 is set aside. Revision Petition No.52 of 2018 is restored on the file of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai.

¶23

The Tribunal shall issue notices to the Respondents therein before hearing the Revision Petition.

¶24

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶26

2/2

¶27

S. L. JAMADAR

Mr. Shivram Rajaram Fendre Decd Thru Lhrs /Lrs v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Shivram Rajaram Fendre Decd Thru Lhrs /Lrs v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Rajeshbhai Desai Vs Yagyanarayan Prabhunath Mishra and Others

Sohan Singh Dhami Vs the Assistant Engineer (Water Works)M West,Ward and Anr.

Sangeeta Vishal Khedekar Nee Sangeetatak Vs Manojkumar Name Tak and Other

Pavankumar Jyotiprasad Agarwal and Ors. Vs Rupee Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Milind Dhumdev Kamble Vs Gurudev School for Deaf Children, Marjewadi , Dist. Solapur and Ors.

Shri. G. Chandrashekharan Shivan Decd Thru Lhrs Vs Mr. Rajkumar Agarwal and Anr.