Applicant sought condonation of 1705 days' delay in restoring an appeal that stood dismissed for failure to remove office objections despite prior orders. The court found no explanation for the inordinate delay and dismissed the application, imposing no costs out of mercy.
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.
7.ia.232.24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.232 OF 2024 IN APPEAL NO.266 OF 2019 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.21 OF 2007 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.255 OF 2006
Hema P. Tejani .. Applicant/Appellant
Versus
Digitally signed ANJALI by ANJALITUSHAR TUSHAR ASWALE ASWALE Date: 2024.08.2016:24:31 +0530
Vasant G. Soneji & Anr .. Respondents
Mr.Sanjay Anabhawane , Advocates for the Applicant.
Mr.Sarthak Shah , with Mr.T.Rajgor i/b M/s. Siddharth Shah & Associates, Advocates for the Respondent.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE: AUGUST 19, 2024
P. C.
The above Interim Application is filed seeking a condonation of delay of 1705 days in restoring the above Appeal. Initially, the above Appeal was admitted on 8th April, 2014 and the Appellant was directed to remove office objections within four weeks from that date. Thereafter, the matter came up on 28th September, 2015 when it was stood over to 27th October,
2015 and liberty was granted to the Appellant to prepare a separate paper Page 1 of 3 AUGUST 19, 2024
Aswale
7.ia.232.24.doc
book. Thereafter, the matter came up on 13th December, 2018. On that date, four weeks time was granted to the Appellant to remove all the office objections and get the Appeal numbered. It was ordered that if compliance was not made within the stipulated period of four weeks from 13th December, 2018 the Appeal shall stand dismissed for non prosecution without further reference to the Court.
2 All these orders have been passed when the Appellant was represented by advocates. The Appellant was very much aware of the order dated 13th December, 2018 directing her to remove all office objections failing which the Appeal would stand dismissed. Since the Appellant did not remove all office objections, the Appeal stood dismissed and the application for restoration of the Appeal has been filed only on 26th October, 2023.
3 We have carefully gone through the Interim Application as well as the additional affidavit dated 29th January, 2024. After perusing the Interim Application as well as the said affidavit, we find there is absolutely no explanation for this inordinate delay. We, therefore, dismiss the above Interim Application.
Page 2 of 3 AUGUST 19, 2024
Aswale
7.ia.232.24.doc
4 Considering that the Appellant is an individual, it is only out of mercy that we did not impose any costs. Hence, there shall be no order as to costs.
5 This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
Page 3 of 3 AUGUST 19, 2024
Aswale
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a 1705-day delay in restoring an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution should be condoned.
Hema P. Tejani
Vasant G. Soneji
Anr.
B. P. Colabawalla
Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
As recorded by the court registry
8 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
