Allowed

Anuradha Sandeep Bhosale v. Sandeep Vilas Bhosale

Bombay HC19 Mar 2024WP/3904/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP No. 3904 of 2024, the Bombay High Court allowed a petition filed by Anuradha Sandeep Bhosale to quash orders rejecting her request for an extension of time to pay litigation costs. The Court quashed the Family Court orders and confirmed the permission for additional evidence in the interest of justice, noting the petitioner's immediate application for extension after being directed to deposi

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned orders dated 21.02.2024; confirmed the order dated 17.02.2024 granting permission to lead additional evidence with time to deposit costs.

Anuradha Sandeep Bhosale vs Sandeep Vilas… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA VIJAY VIJAY RAJGURU RAJGURU Date: 2024.06.18 11:31:05 +0530

¶2

14-wp-3904-204..doc

¶3

varsha

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3904 OF 2024

¶6

Anuradha Sandeep Bhosale … Petitioner

¶7

vs. Sandeep Vilas Bhosale … Respondent

¶8

Ms. Manisha Devkar, for Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal for Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶11

DATED : 13^th JUNE 2024

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

This petition takes an exception to the order dated 21^st February 2024, rejecting the petitioner’s application for extension of time to make payment of the cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The petitioner’s application for leading additional evidence was allowed subject to payment of cost. Petitioner was unable to pay the cost, hence, she filed an application for extension of time. However, the application was rejected and as a consequence of non-payment of cost, the order allowing the application for permission to lead additional evidence was set aside and the application stood dismissed.

¶14

Page no. 1 of 3

¶15

14-wp-3904-204..doc

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court had permitted the petitioner to make payment of cost and as per the permission granted by this Court, the petitioner has deposited the amount of cost.

¶17

A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner had immediately applied for extension of time to pay the cost. Thus, considering the reasons stated by the petitioner in the application for extension of time and compliance made by the petitioner as directed by this Court on 19^th March 2024, I do not see any reason not to allow the petitioner to lead additional evidence as permitted by order dated 17^th February 2024, by the Trial Court.

¶18

Hence, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c) which reads as under:

¶19

“b. By way of appropriate writ be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 21.02.2024 passed by Ld. Judge Family Court, Satara below Exh. 281 in A Petition No. 130 of 2019 thereby rejected the Application below Exh. 281 for extension of time to deposit amount of cost; in the interest of justice;

¶20

c. By way of appropriate writ be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 21.02.2024 passed by Ld. Judge Family Court, Satara below Exh. 278 in A Petition No. 130 of 2019 thereby disposed of the Application below Exh.

¶21

Page no. 2 of 3

¶22

14-wp-3904-204..doc

¶23

278; further be pleased to confirm Order dated 17.02.2024 passed below Exh. 278 by granting time to deposit amount of cost in the interest of justice;”

¶24

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶25

Page no. 3 of 3

Anuradha Sandeep Bhosale v. Sandeep Vilas Bhosale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuradha Sandeep Bhosale v. Sandeep Vilas Bhosale

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mr. Sanat Nainmal Jain and Anr. Vs Ganga-Jamuna Milan C.H. S. Ltd. and Ors.

Shri Abdulsattar a Rahiman Kazi and Anr. Vs Ismile Mahmood Kazi Since Decd.

Bank of India Vs Hindraj Tiles Manufacturing Company Private Limited and Anr.

Anwar Ismail Majgaonkar Since Deceased His Legal Heirs vs Ayub Adam Hodekar and Anr.

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Mrs.Namita Kamal Narayan Sadh

Smt. Anita Jaywant Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.