Allowed

Pune Vishwa Brahman Samaj and Ors. v. Narayan Husanappa Bhimale

Bombay HC20 Feb 2024CAC/19/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application for restoration of a dismissed revision application, the High Court condoned a 60-day delay and restored the file for hearing on merits, as the initial dismissal reason (unserved respondent) was resolved by substituting legal heirs.

What did the court decide?

The revision application is restored to file for hearing on merits; the delay is condoned subject to payment of Rs.10,000 costs to Respondent No. 1(b).

Pune Vishwa Brahman Samaj and Ors. Vs Narayan Husanappa Bhimale — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Digitally signed ANANT by ANANT KRISHNA KRISHNA NAIKDate: NAIK 2024.02.21 12:44:31 +0530

¶2

1/3

¶3

22.CAC.19.2022.doc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.19 OF 2021 IN

¶6

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.297 OF 2008

¶7

Pune Vishwa Brahman Samaj & Ors. ... Applicants
Vs.

¶8

Mr. Narayan Husanappa Bhimale (since Deceased) ... Respondents
through legal heirs Smt. Sunita Narayan Bhimale & Ors

¶9

Mr. Sumedh S Modak i/by Mr. Vijay Killedar for the Applicants.
Adv. Yuvraj A. Tajare i/b. Mr. Nitin Mulye for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : M. M. SATHAYE, J.

¶11

DATED : 20^th FEBRUARY, 2024

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. This is an application for restoration of the revision application, which

¶14

is dismissed as a result of conditional order dated 08/06/2018 passed

¶15

therein. There is a delay of 60 days in filing the present Application.

¶16

2. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants and learned Counsel for the

¶17

Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(c).

¶18

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the conditional order

¶19

directed the Applicants to take steps to serve the unserved Respondents. He

¶20

submits that in this matter there was sole Respondent, who has expired and

¶21

his legal heirs are duly brought on record under order dated 09/08/2023

akn 1/3

2/3

22.CAC.19.2022.doc

passed in separate Interim Application No. 20505 of 2022. He submits that
in view thereof, the reason for dismissal under order dated 08/06/2018 no
longer survives. He therefore, prays for restoration.

¶26

4.Learned Counsel for the Respondents opposes this Application on the
ground that the Applicants have been negligent about proceeding with the
present matter and relied on two earlier orders dated 29/09/2007 and
06/12/2013 passed by this Court, showing that in past also the present
Revision Application was dismissed and restored. He submits that sufficient
indulgence has already been shown to the Applicants.

¶27

5.Above Revision was admitted by issuing Rule and it was pending for
final disposal. Considering that and the fact that reason for conditional
dismissal no longer survives as the sole Respondent has been duly
represented through his legal heirs who are brought on record, sufficient
cause and case for restoration is made out. However, considering that the
Petition / Revision Application was dismissed earlier also on two occasions,
the Respondents will have to be compensated.

¶28

6.Hence, the Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b)
and (c); delay is condoned and the above Revision is restored to file for
hearing on merits subject to condition that the Applicants pay costs of
Rs.10,000/- to the Respondents, to be paid to the Respondent No.1(b)-

2/3

akn

3/3

22.CAC.19.2022.doc

Milind Narayan Bhimale on behalf of all the Respondents, within a period of
four weeks from today. It is clarified that if the costs are not paid within the
stipulated time with its proof duly furnished to the office, the Application
shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.

¶34

7.The cost can be paid by drawing a demand draft in the name of
Respondent No. 1(b) and handing over it to learned Counsel appearing for
the Respondents.

¶35

8.All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of
this order.

¶36

(M. M. SATHAYE, J.)

¶37

3/3

¶38

akn

Pune Vishwa Brahman Samaj and Ors. v. Narayan Husanappa Bhimale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pune Vishwa Brahman Samaj and Ors. v. Narayan Husanappa Bhimale

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

Anil Jagannath Chavan Vs Jagannath Pandharinath Chavan

Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry Vs Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd., and Anr.

Vilas Ramchandra Borade Vs Ganapat Ramchandra Borade(Decd.Thr.Lrs ) Smt. Indubai Ganapat Borade and Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Gr.Bombay andORS. Vs M/S.Karnani Building.

Smt.Priyanka Prakash Kuveskar and Ors. Vs Shri Shankar Vithu Kuveskar

Yusuf Abbas Bagwan Vs Bhartesh Rajkumar Gandhi and Ors.