Dismissed

Rohit Uday Bhagwat v. Rekha Ramchandra Limaye (Caveator)

Bombay HC24 Apr 2024NMT/111/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court bench dismissed a notice of motion filed to set aside a rejected caveat application. The court observed that the filing was intended to delay the testamentary petition and dismissed the motion without prejudice to the caveat's rejection.

What did the court decide?

Notice of motion dismissed. Department directed to proceed expeditiously in the testamentary matter.

Rohit Uday Bhagwat Vs Rekha Ramchandra… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2024)

bipin prithiani

913-nmt-11.18.doc

BIPIN DHARMENDERPRITHIANI Digitally signed by BIPINDHARMENDER PRITHIANIDate: 2024.04.26 14:24:40 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYTESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 111 OF 2018 IN

¶6

CHAMBER SUMMONS (L) NO. 151 OF 2017

¶7

… Rekha Ramchandra Limaye Applicant In the matter between : Rohit Uday Bhagwat … Petitioner Versus Rekha Ramchandra Limaye … Caveatrix Urmila Laxman Thatte … Deceased

¶8

WITH TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 585 OF 2014 IN CAVEAT (L) NO. 207 OF 2016 IN PETITION NO. 585 OF 2014

¶9

¶10

Ms. Anjali Purav for the Petitioner.

¶11

¶12

CORAM: MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 24^th APRIL 2024

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

. This notice of motion was lodged almost 6 years ago and it is filed on behalf of the caveatrix for setting aside of order dated 30^th January 2018, passed in Chamber Summons, whereby last chance was given to remove the objections under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. The objections were not removed and hence, the prayer for condoning delay in

bipin prithiani

913-nmt-11.18.doc

filing caveat and affidavit in support of the caveat stood rejected. This notice of motion also seeks condonation of delay of 65 days in moving the notice of motion with a further prayer for condoning delay in filing the caveat and affidavit in support of the caveat.

¶19

This notice of motion has been languishing for about 6 years, with no interest shown by the caveatrix to pursue the same. On 31^st July 2023, this Court took note of the pendency of the present notice of motion, due to which the original testamentary petition has remained pending. In the said order dated 31^st July 2023, it was recorded that a copy of the said order would be served on the caveatrix. A direction was issued to the caveatrix to remain present either herself or through her advocate on the next date when the notice of motion was directed to be listed for disposal.

¶20

The learned counsel for the original petitioner has tendered an affidavit of service along with documents to show that the aforesaid order was indeed served on the caveatrix. The affidavit of service is taken on record.

¶21

Even today, when the notice of motion is listed for hearing, there is no appearance on behalf of the caveatrix, although an advocate on record does represent her. The caveatrix has also chosen not to appear before this Court, despite service.

bipin prithiani

913-nmt-11.18.doc

It is evident that the caveatrix is not interested in pursuing her caveat and the same appears to have been filed only to delay the original testamentary petition filed by the petitioner for grant of letters of administration with Will annexed.

¶26

This Court has perused the affidavit filed in support of the notice of motion. There is hardly any reason placed on record to justify the prayers made in the notice of motion. There is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the original petitioner that such a notice of motion ought to be dismissed forthwith, as the only purpose for filing the same appears to stall the issuance of grant in favour of the original petitioner.

¶27

Having perused the material on record and in the light of the approach adopted by the caveatrix, this Court is inclined to accept the submissions made on behalf of the original petitioner. Accordingly, notice of motion is dismissed.

¶28

The department is now directed to proceed expeditiously in the matter, in accordance with law.

¶29

MANISH PITALE, J.

Rohit Uday Bhagwat v. Rekha Ramchandra Limaye (Caveator)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Uday Bhagwat v. Rekha Ramchandra Limaye (Caveator)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Nagaraj Narayan Rao Vs Not Applicable

Vinay Premchand Kothari Vs Alok Premchand Kothari (Caveator)

Sujata Sudarshan Shetty Vs Govind Anappa Shetty

Dinesh Pralhad Pandya vs State of Maharashtra

Imran Aslam Divkar vs Union of India and Anr.

Anil Madhusudan Dave and 2 Ors. Vs Madhusudan Ambalal Dave Alias M.A. Dave Alias Madusudan a. Dave Alias Madusudanbhai Dave (Deceased)