Mangal Mohan Bhise and Ors. v. Nanda Uttam Shinde and Ors.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.469 OF 2024
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders appearance, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders CORAM : S.R. AGRAWAL REGISTRAR (JUDL. - II) DATE : 27th November, 2024 Advocate Namit Pansare for Applicant Present. As per bailiff report dated 22/08/2024, notice of Respondent No.2 is returned unserved with remark “Expired on 11/09/2023”. The above numbered Civil Revision Application is listed for third time on the board of Registrar for taking steps to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Respondent No.2. Already four weeks time has been granted, however, despite of granting four weeks time, Advocate for the Applicant has not taken any steps for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 2, till date. Here reference to Chapter VII Rule 6 Sub rule 1 and 2 of the Bombay High Court,
Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (for short “Rules”) may be conveniently made. It states about Processes, Process fees, Printing Charges, Security for costs and other procedure after admission etc.
In view of provisions under Chapter VII Rule 6(2), in cases where 90 days have elapsed from the reported death of any of the parties to the appeal and no action has been taken by the Appellant to bring the heirs of the deceased party on record the matter shall be placed before the Registrar for orders regarding the abatement of the appeal as against the deceased party as soon as possible.
As such, the prescribed time to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased Respondent No.2, as provided under Rules 1960 has been expired. 04 weeks time was granted, but all in vain. The matter is lying ideally without any progress due to not taken any steps. However, instead of passing order of abatement outrightly, it would be just and proper to give one opportunity to take appropriate steps for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No.2, if any. In turn, 02 (two) weeks time is granted with directions to take appropriate steps for
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Applicant (unnamed in text)
- respondent
Respondent No.2 (deceased)
- respondent
Respondent No.4
- respondent
Respondent No.5
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
11 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Yogesh Rajaram Zugre vs Union of India through General Manager, Mumbai
Smt. Megha Avinash Gharat vs the State of Maharashtra through the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.
Shashikant Balakrishna Mistri and Anr. vs Chetna Rajendra Kansara Alias Chetna Prakash Panchal
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Legal Hub vs Smt. Sakhubai Pandurang Chavan and Ors.