Partly allowed

Pandurang Martand Gunjal v. Murlidhar Devram Gunjal

Bombay HC11 Oct 2024IA/13564/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim order during a Second Appeal, the Court directed that notices be issued to the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondents in two pending interim applications regarding service of process and amendments to bring parties on record.

What did the court decide?

Notices directed to be issued to heirs of deceased respondents; application for bringing heirs on record allowed; amendment to be carried out within six weeks.

Pandurang Martand Gunjal vs Murlidhar Devram… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

56-SAST-7330-2021.docx

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 7330 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1465 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13563 OF 2024 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13562 OF 2024 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13564 OF 2024 IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1465 OF 2021 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 7330 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1640 OF 2021

¶4

Pandurang Martand Gunjal and Others … Appellants/ Applicants Vs. Murlidhar Devram Gunjal … Respondent

¶5

Mr. Uday Bhagwanrao Nighot for the Appellants/Applicants.

¶6

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 11^th OCTOBER 2024

¶7

ORDER :

¶8

Interim Application No. 1465 of 2021

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the decree in

¶10

favour of the appellants was reversed by the Appellate Court. However, the appellants were not represented when the appeal was

¶11

decided. He submits that the appeal was initially filed in the court at

¶12

Pune and subsequently it was transferred to the Court at Khed.

¶13

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date: 2024.11.04 17:09:27 +0530

¶14

1/3

¶15

56-SAST-7330-2021.docx

¶16

He submits that the applicants were unaware about the same

¶17

and they were never served with any notice. To support his submission he relied upon the averment made in the application and the copies of the notice with bailiff remark annexed at page 17 and 18 of the appeal. He thus submits that the Second Appeal would raise a question of law on the point as to whether the trial court’s decree could have been reversed for giving proper notice of hearing to the original plaintiff. He submits that there are applications filed for bringing on record heirs and representatives.

¶18

He submits that Interim Application No. 13564 of 2024 is filed for bringing on record names of heirs of deceased respondent no.2. He submits that the said application is within time. Hence the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Amendment to be carried out within six weeks.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has filed another application being Interim Application No. 13562 of 2024 for bringing on record names and heirs of deceased respondent no. 1. There is delay in filing the said application. Hence, office is directed to issue notice to respondent nos. 1A to 1D. In addition to court notice, learned Advocate for the appellant to serve the said respondents by private service and file service affidavit before the

¶20

2/3

¶21

56-SAST-7330-2021.docx

¶22

next date.

¶23

Office is directed to issue notice of the Interim Application no. 1465 of 2021 to the heirs and legal representative of deceased respondent no. 1 and 2.

¶24

In addition to court notice, learned counsel for the applicant to serve the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent no. 1 and 2 by private service and file service affidavit before the next date.

¶25

Both the notices are made returnable on 20^th January 2025.

¶26

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

¶27

3/3

Pandurang Martand Gunjal v. Murlidhar Devram Gunjal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurang Martand Gunjal v. Murlidhar Devram Gunjal

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Khimjibhai Hirjibhai Patel and Another vs M/S. Palm Towers Chs Limited

Mohammed Rafique Usman Phudinawala vs M/S. Rayyan Constructions Thr. Partner Ibrahim Jusab Supariwala and Others

Mr. Bhupendra Onkarrao Lohkpure and Another vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another

Shri Yeshwant Laxman Sutar (Since Deceased through Legal Heirs) Thrgh Poa Chayya Prabhakar Chikode vs Shri Prabhakar Murlidhar Sutar and Ors.

Vinayak Arjun Parab and Ors. vs Arjun Laxman Parab

Shri Gadge Maharaj Maratha Dharmshala Trustees Babam Gangadhar Kolse Patil and Ors. vs Purshottam Manohar Paraswar and Anr.