Disposed

Sindhubai Mahadeo Kendre v. Baburao Ranba Neharkar and Others

Bombay HC15 Jan 2024CA/14842/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant, original defendant No.2 in a second appeal, sought condonation of delay to bring legal representatives of respondent Nos.3 to 5 on record and set aside abatement against respondent Nos.7 and 8. The court condoned the delay subject to costs and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; legal representatives permitted to be brought on record and abatement orders set aside in terms of prayer clauses (B), (C) and (D), with Rs.2000 costs to respondents 1 and 2.

Sindhubai Mahadeo Kendre Vs Baburao Ranba Neharkar and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

(1)

¶2

13 CA-14842.2022.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

13 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14842 OF 2022 IN SA/598/2018

¶5

SINDHUBAI MAHADEO KENDRE VERSUS

¶6

BABURAO RANBA NEHARKAR AND OTHERS WITH

¶7

SECOND APPEAL NO. 598 OF 2018

¶8

WITH

¶9

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9146 OF 2018 IN SA/598/2018

¶10

Mr. Avinash Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. Shailesh Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the applicant.

¶11

Mr. A.R. Tapse, Advocate holding for Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶12

Mr. A.R. Tapse, Advocate for respondent Nos. 6D, 6E, 6H, 8A, 9 and 11.

¶13

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. DATED : 15 January 2024

¶14

ORDER:-

¶15

IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14842 OF 2022 :

¶16

Heard rival submissions. 2. The applicant i.e. original defendant No.2, who has filed the second appeal, is seeking permission to bring on record the legal representatives of respondent Nos.3 to 5 by condoning the delay as well as setting aside implied abatement order. They also claimed for setting aside abatement order against respondent Nos.7 and 8 dated 02.05.2019.

¶17

Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the original plaintiffs, has strongly opposed the application on the ground that decree passed by the learned trial Court is in their

¶18

(2)

¶19

13 CA-14842.2022.odt

¶20

favour whereas the first appellate court has also confirmed the same. According to him, there is inordinate delay in filing this application.

¶21

It appears that though certain grounds are raised for condonation of delay, but the same are not genuine grounds. It is difficult to believe that the applicant was not knowing death of respondent Nos.3 to 5 and their respective legal representatives. However, considering the statutory right of the applicant, the delay caused in filing this application can be condoned by awarding suitable cost to the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, the application stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (B), (C) and (D) subject to cost of Rs. 2000/- to be paid to respondent Nos.1 and 2 in equal proportion within the period of two weeks. The necessary amendment be carried out within the stipulated period. Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶22

List the appeal and other application on 29.01.2024. Interim relief granted earlier, to continue till then.

¶23

(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.)

¶24

vd_dhirde

Sindhubai Mahadeo Kendre v. Baburao Ranba Neharkar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sindhubai Mahadeo Kendre v. Baburao Ranba Neharkar and Others

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

Pradip Pandurang Kasare and Ors. Vs Pramod Dnyandev Shelar and Ors.

Sambhaji Devidasrao Konale and Ors. Vs Vilas Digambarrao Deshmukh and Ors.

Mohammed S/O Mohiuddin Shaikh Deceased Lrs. Jamadar and Others Vs Farid Haseen Shaikh Deceased Lrs. Doulatbi and Others

Vishal Balbhim Ghadge Vs Balbhim Sambhaji Ghadge L.Rs. Kausalyabai and Others

Bhagwat Limbaji Gavali Vs Sakharbai Chandrakant Gavali and Ors.

Khatunbee Rajasaheb Atar Vs Rajabhau Sidram Wable and Another