Partly allowed

Ranjan Bhausaheb Dombe v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the. Collector and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Feb 2024IA/2226/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J. allowed an interim application for condonation of delay in filing a Civil Revision Application and issued notice to respondents under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Interim Application allowed; delay of 110 days condoned; notice issued to respondents under Order XII Rule 6 CPC; application directed to be heard on the next adjourned date.

Ranjan Bhausaheb Dombe Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

71.IA.2226.2023.doc

¶2

HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2226 OF 2023 IN

¶6

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO.5597 OF 2023

¶7

Ranjan Bhausaheb Dombe .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Ms. Manisha Devkar, Advocate for Applicant.

¶9

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2024

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1. Mentioned out of turn. Taken up for hearing at the time of

¶12

rising.

¶13

2. Heard Ms. Devkar, learned Advocate for Applicant.

¶14

3. Interim Application No.2226 of 2023 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing Civil Revision Application.

¶15

4. I have perused the Interim Application and for the reasons mentioned therein and more specifically in paragraph No.5, the Interim Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Delay of 110 days stands condoned. Interim Application is disposed.

¶16

5. Civil Revision Application takes exception to the order passed below Exhibit-85. It is at page No.31 of the Civil Revision Application. Application is filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil

¶17

1 of 2

¶18

71.IA.2226.2023.doc

¶19

Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘ CPC ’) in view of specific admission made by the Respondents in the pleadings accepting and admitting the Plaintiff’s case.

¶20

6. Merely on the basis of denial by the Defendants, the impugned order has been passed.

¶21

7. An arguable case has been made out for issuance of notice by Ms. Devkar.

¶22

8. Hence issue notice to Respondents. Applicant is directed to serve the Respondents. Humdast permitted. In addition to Court’s notice, Applicant is permitted to serve Respondents copy of this order and copy of the Civil Revision Application and inform them about the next date of hearing by any permissible mode of service and file appropriate affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof. Respondents are directed to file Affidavit-in-Reply if so desired to the Civil Revision Application on or before the next date.

¶23

9. It is clarified that this Civil Revision Application shall be taken up for hearing on the next adjourned date.

¶24

10. Stand over to 18^th March, 2024 .

¶25

H. H. SAWANT

¶26

Digitally signed by HARSHADA HARSHADA HANUMANT HANUMANT SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2024.02.27 14:26:22 +0530

¶27

2 of 2

Ranjan Bhausaheb Dombe v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the. Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan Bhausaheb Dombe v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the. Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Shankar Jadhav and Ors. Vs Chandrashekhar Kashinath Shinde and Ors.

Kshetra Goraknath Math Cheravali Thr. Yogi Balanath Guru Kisannath Maharaj Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Union Bank of India, Thr. Chief Manager Mr. Awnish Kumar Vs M/S. Shruti Developers Thr. Partners, Mr. Shyam Manohar Bade

Munni Altaf Balurgi Vs Nanasaheb Kalu Gaikwad Decd. Thr Legal Heirs and Ors.

Mrs. Sushiladevi Pannalal Goyal and Anr. Vs Mr. Suresh Rambhau Ladkat and Ors.

Mahant Kaushalendra Dasji Vs Govind Gangadhar Kute