Allowed

Rajaram Maruti Nikam (Decd.Thr.Lrs) Popat Rajaram Nikam and Ors. v. Pandurang Maruti Nikam(Since Decd.Thr.Lrs) Bayadabai Pandurang Nikam and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Mar 2024IA/18560/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court recalled an order dismissing a second appeal for non-prosecution, allowing the interim application to restore the appeal, emphasizing protection for agriculturist litigants against advocate negligence.

What did the court decide?

Recall of order dated 21st February, 2018, dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. Application allowed and second appeal restored to file.

Rajaram Maruti Nikam (Decd.Thr.Lrs) Popat… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:11379

¶2

44ia18560-22

¶3

sa_mandawgad

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18560 OF 2022 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.918 OF 2015

¶6

Rajaram Maruti Nikam (since deceased) through LRs. Popat Rajaram Nikam and Ors … Applicants. In the matter between: Shankar Rajaram Nikam and Ors. … Appellants. Versus Bayadabai Pandurang Nikam and Ors. … Respondents.

¶7

Ms. Shraddha Pawar, for the Applicants.

¶8

Mr. Pradeep Gole a/w Mr.Suraj Shejwal, for the Respondent Nos.1A, 1B, 2, 3 and 4.

¶9

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : MARCH 06, 2024

¶10

P. C.:

¶11

Interim Application has been preferred seeking recall of

¶12

the order dated 21^st February, 2018, dismissing the Appeal for nonprosecution. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant points out the pleadings in the Application for the non-appearance as well as for the delay which has been caused in preferring the present application.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents would

¶14

1/2

¶15

44ia18560-22

¶16

submit that the reasons which are pleaded are incorrect. He would further submit that this is a suit for partition and Respondents in whose favour concurrent finding have not been able to get their share in the partition. Although the pleadings in the Application made out a case of default on the part of the Applicants, it is clear from the order of 21^st February, 2018, dismissing the Appeal that due to non-appearance of the Advocate for the Appellants on three occasions, this Court was constrained to dismiss the Appeal for non-prosecution. The litigants are agriculturists and cannot be made to suffer for the negligence or default on the part of their Advocate in attending the matter.

¶17

In view of the above, the order of 21^st February, 2018 is recalled. Application is allowed and the Second Appeal is restored to file.

¶18

(Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.)

¶19

2/2

¶20

Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 08/03/2024 15:08:27

Rajaram Maruti Nikam (Decd.Thr.Lrs) Popat Rajaram Nikam and Ors. v. Pandurang Maruti Nikam(Since Decd.Thr.Lrs) Bayadabai Pandurang Nikam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaram Maruti Nikam (Decd.Thr.Lrs) Popat Rajaram Nikam and Ors. v. Pandurang Maruti Nikam(Since Decd.Thr.Lrs) Bayadabai Pandurang Nikam and Ors.

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

Vishnu Bapu Patil (Deceased Thr. LRs) and Ors. Vs Tukaram Yashwant Patil (Deceased Thr. LRs) and Ors.

Santosh Mahadu Rakshe and Others Vs Pandurang Mathu Khangate

Shri. Dattatraya Kashinath Jadhav Vs Shri. Govind Sambhaji Nale

Shri. Balasaheb Shankar Salokhe Adn Anr. Vs Shri. Keshavaji Madhavji Patel and Ors.

Shri. Nivrutti Punja Lonare (Since Decd. through Legal Heirs) Vs Ashok Mahadu Lonare and Ors.

Shri. Pravin Raosaheb Navale and Ors. Vs Suresh Baburao Navale and Ors.