Allowed

Shri. Ananda Sitaram Suryawanshi v. Shri. Kashinath Ganpati Babar and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Mar 2024IA/30734/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of two interim applications in a second appeal pending since 2005. It granted an early hearing of the appeal and allowed substitution of legal representatives after condoning a 113-day delay, while also deleting one respondent from the array.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; early hearing ordered; substitution of legal representatives and deletion of respondent ordered.

Shri. Ananda Sitaram Suryawanshi Vs Shri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Mamta Kale

¶2

34-sa-272-2005.doc

¶3

MAMTAAMARKALE Digitallysigned byMAMTAAMARKALEDate:2024.03.1518:23:28+0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

SECOND APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2005

¶6

Ananda Sitaram Suryawanshi ..Appellant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Kashinath Ganpati Babar and Ors. ..Respondents

¶9

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30733 OF 2022 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2005

¶10

Shri. Kashinath Ganpati Babar Ors. ...Applicants

¶11

In the matter between

¶12

Ananda Sitaram Suryawanshi ..Appellant

¶13

Vs.

¶14

Kashinath Ganpati Babar and Ors. ..Respondents

¶15

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30734 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

SECOND APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2005

¶18

Ananda Sitaram Suryawanshi ..Applicant/Appellant Vs.

¶19

Kashinath Ganpati Babar and Ors. ..Respondents

¶20

Mr. Devendra Pawar i/b. T. S. Ingale, for the Applicants in both interim applications. None for the Respondent.

page 1 of 2

Mamta Kale

34-sa-272-2005.doc

CORAM : R. N. LADDHA, J. DATE : 15 MARCH 2024

¶25

P.C.

¶26

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30733 OF 2022

¶27

. For the reasons stated in the application and the fact that the appeal is pending since the year 2005, this application for early hearing of the appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

¶28

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30734 OF 2022

¶29

. This is an application for bringing the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.6 on record by condoning the delay of 113 days in filing the interim application. The applicant also prayed for deletion of name of respondent No.8 from the array of the appeal since his legal representatives are already on record.

¶30

For the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b), (c) and (d). Necessary amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today.

¶31

After amendment is carried out, issue notice to the newly added respondents returnable on 18 April 2024.

¶32

The application stands disposed of.

¶33

R. N. LADDHA, J.

¶34

page 2 of 2

Shri. Ananda Sitaram Suryawanshi v. Shri. Kashinath Ganpati Babar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ananda Sitaram Suryawanshi v. Shri. Kashinath Ganpati Babar 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

Smt. Nandinibai P. Lingras and Others Vs Shri Jayprakash D. Lingras and Others

Chakradhar Sahu Vs State of Maharashtra

Dilipkumar Dattatraya Pimpalgaonkar Vs Raichand Harakchand Baldota Thr His Power of Attoreny Holder Shri. P.J. Raisoni

Subhas Velji Chawda Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sandeep Steels through Ca Bhavin Arvind Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kashinath Ganpati Babar and Anr. Vs Ananda Sitaram Suryawanshi