Allowed

Shri Parshuram Pandurang Mhaske v. Union of India through Ministry of Communication and Defense and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Mar 2024IA/6923/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Legal representatives sought condonation of a 1799-day delay in substituting themselves for a deceased writ petitioner, citing the immovable-property subject matter. The High Court condoned the delay imposing nominal cost of Rs.1 per day, allowed the application, and directed costs be donated to the Kirtikar Law Library.

What did the court decide?

1799-day delay in joining LRs of deceased petitioner condoned with Rs.1/day cost; LRs to be brought on record by 15 January 2025.

Shri Parshuram Pandurang Mhaske vs Union of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2024.12.21 11:23:53 +0530

¶2

Trupti 1 30-IA-6923-2024speaking.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6923 of 2024 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 4333 of 2016

¶6

Parshuram Pandurang Mhaske (Deceased) Through LRs Kamla Alias Alka Parshuram Mhaske & Ors.

¶7

… Applicants

¶8

versus

¶9

The Union of India and Others … Respondents

¶10

Mr.Nitin Gaware Patil i/b. Mr.Divyesh Jain i/b. Mr.Abhishek Nagode for the Applicants.

¶11

Mrs.Shehnaz V. Bharucha and Mr.D.A.Dubey for Respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr.P.P.Kakade, Addl.GP with Smt.S.P.Chipade, AGP and Mr.A.A.Alaspurkar, AGP for the Respondent -State.

¶13

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 13^TH DECEMBER, 2024

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

The sole Petitioner in the Writ Petition has passed away.

¶17

Reasons are assigned to narrate the circumstances due to which, the

¶18

delay in bringing the legal representatives on record is of 1799 days.

¶19

Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides.

¶20

This order is corrected pursuant to the speaking to the minutes of the order dated 20.12.2024.

¶21

Trupti 2 30-IA-6923-2024speaking.odt

¶22

Having perused the reasons and the cause espoused in the Writ Petition and the background of the Applicants, since the delay is too large, we are imposing nominal cost at the rate of Rs.1/- per day. If the delay is not condoned, an irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the legal representatives since the matter involves immovable properties.

¶23

In view of the above and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v/s Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and Esha Bhattacharjee v/s Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, the delay of 1799 days is condoned with cost of Rs.1/- per day. The Interim Application is allowed. The legal representatives be brought on record, on or before 15^th January, 2025.

¶24

By the consent of the parties, the amount of cost will be donated to the Kirtikar Law Library and the Applicants can directly make a payment to the Library by indicating this order.

¶25

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE,J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶26

This order is corrected pursuant to the speaking to the minutes of the order dated 20.12.2024.

Shri Parshuram Pandurang Mhaske v. Union of India through Ministry of Communication and Defense and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Parshuram Pandurang Mhaske v. Union of India through Ministry of Communication and Defense and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra Vasantrao Sonawane and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Thr Secretary School Education and Sports and Ors.

Ramnath Trimbak Gadakh and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education and Sports and Ors.

Dr. Gaikwad Rajashri Nitin Alias Rajashri Prataprao Mohite vs the Deputy Secretary Affiliation Department, T-1 and Ors.

Smt. Shantabai Tukaram Parande Decd Thru Lrs vs Union of India through Ministry of Communication and Defense and Ors.

Hemisphere Properties India Ltd. vs Smt. Shantabai Tukaram Parande and Ors.

Chandrakant Vinayak Bhosale and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.