Dismissed¶12

Mohammad Hamidoddin Mohammad Muniruddin v. Mohid Khan Mohammad Khan Pathan and Another

Bombay HC15 Apr 2024WP/3788/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition No. 3788 of 2024, Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench, Arun R. Pedneker J., decided 15.04.2024 (2024:BHC-AUG:7816); writ petition dismissed; maintainability of application for dismissal of appeal on expiry of limitation (Exh. 35) and for production of documents (Exh. 39) in R.C.A. No. 2/2024; prior order dated 6.1.2024 extending time to deposit Court fees; liberty reserved to challenge extension order.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioners to take recourse against the order allowing extension of time to deposit Court fees, if available in law. ¶12

Mohammad Hamidoddin Mohammad Muniruddin Vs Mohid Khan Mohammad Khan Pathan and Another — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioners to take recourse against the order allowing extension of time to deposit Court fees, if available in law.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the learned appellate Court's order dated 4.3.2024 rejecting the defendant's applications at Exh. 35 (dismissal of appeal on expiry of limitation) and Exh. 39 (production of documents) in R.C.A. No. 2/2024 deserved to be entertained, in view of the earlier order dated 6.1.2024 allowing extension of time for depositing Court fees.

¶10

Court's answer

Since the application for extension of time for depositing the Court fees had already been allowed by the appellate court on 6.1.2024, the subsequent application for dismissal of the appeal on the ground of expiry of limitation and the application for production of documents were not maintainable, and the appellate court rightly declined to entertain and rejected them.

¶11

Key takeaways

The petitioners were left at liberty to take recourse against the order allowing extension of time to deposit Court fees, if such recourse is available to them in law.obiter¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (Arun R. Pedneker, J.) dismissed Writ Petition No. 3788 of 2024 by order dated April 15, 2024. The learned appellate Court, by order dated 4.3.2024, had rejected the defendant's applications at Exh. 35 (dismissal of appeal in R.C.A. No. 2/2024 on the ground of expiry of limitation) and Exh. 39 (production of documents). Holding that the application for extension of time for depositing Court fees had already been allowed on 6.1.2024, the Court found the subsequent limitation-dismissal and document-production applications not maintainable and upheld the appellate Court's rejection. The petitioners were left free to take recourse against the extension-of-time order, if available in law. Neutral citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:7816.

Mohammad Hamidoddin Mohammad Muniruddin v. Mohid Khan Mohammad Khan Pathan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Hamidoddin Mohammad Muniruddin v. Mohid Khan Mohammad Khan Pathan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhausaheb Kisan Naikwadi and Others Vs Madhukar Laxmanrao Nawale and Others

Bhausaheb Kisan Naikwadi and Others Vs Madhukar Laxmanrao Nawale and Others

Indubai Haribhau Berad and Others Vs Sunil Ramesh Berad and Another

Ashutosh Sadanand Karmarkar vs Anushree Rajendra Kulkarni

Chabildas Kalu Chaudhari Bahhuddesiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary Vs the Municipal Council Bhusawal through Its Chief Executive Officer

Shivaji Nivrutti Kamble and Another Vs Sushilabai Vinayak Bhandare