Allowed

Yashodabai Zabu Dhabadge v. Sanjay Shankar Dhabadge and Another

Bombay HC8 Oct 2024WP/4865/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted an aged widow petitioner to deposit fees for a Court Commissioner appointment, quashing orders rejecting her application and setting aside rejection of prior applications. The initial allowed order is subject to implementation upon fee payment and cost deposit.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 03.04.2024 and 08.04.2024 quashed; order dated 13.03.2024 subject to fee deposit and Rs.1,000 cost.

Yashodabai Zabu Dhabadge Vs Sanjay Shankar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

4865.24WP

¶3

2024:BHC-AUG:24689

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

1037 WRIT PETITION NO. 4865 OF 2024

¶6

YASHODABAI ZABU DHABADGE VERSUS

¶7

SANJAY SHANKAR DHABADGE & ANOTHER

¶8

Advocate for the petitioner : Adv.H.V.Patil a/w. Adv.D.Y.Nandedkar.

¶9

Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 and 2 : Adv.A.S.Jagtap h/f. Adv.A.N.Nagargoje

¶10

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 08.10.2024

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1] Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2] The application for appointment of Court Commissioner is filed by the petitioner – plaintiff below Exh.47 and the trial Court has allowed the said application by order dated 13.03.2024 subject to payment of requisite commission fees of TILR within one week. However, the petitioner could not deposit the said amount within stipulated period. Thereafter, the petitioner – plaintiff filed an application below Exh. 80 seeking payment of requisite commission fees of TILR. However, the said application was not filed with affidavit and by order dated 03.04.2024 the trial Court rejected the said application. Thereafter, another

¶14

¶15

4865.24WP

¶16

application is filed by the petitioner – plaintiff at Exh.81 along with supporting affidavit. The said application is also rejected by order dated 08.04.2024.

¶17

3] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is old aged lady and in the interest of justice the petitioner may be permitted to deposit the fees of TILR and the order of appointment of Court Commissioner dated 13.03.2024 may be implemented.

¶18

4] Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is of old aged lady and widow without child, the petitioner is permitted to deposit the commission fees of TILR within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading the order of this Court. The impugned order dated 03.04.2024 passed below Exh.80 and the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 passed below Exh.81 are quashed and set aside. On such amount being paid, the order dated 13.03.2024 passed below Exh. 47 be implemented subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Advocates Association of Bombay High Court at Aurangabad.

¶19

5] In view of above, the present Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶20

DDC

¶21

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE

Yashodabai Zabu Dhabadge v. Sanjay Shankar Dhabadge and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashodabai Zabu Dhabadge v. Sanjay Shankar Dhabadge and Another

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

Prakash Kadaji Konale through Gpa Phulabai Babruwan Bhosale Vs Madhav Gangaram Bajulge and Others

Chandraprakash Nandlal Bhansali Vs Santosh Kundlik Dugle through Gpa Kalyan Kundlik Dugleand Others

Bura Nagar Grampanchayat through Its Sarpanch Vs Arjun Kisan Bhagat Died through Lrs Vijay Arjun Bhagat and Others

Shaileja Keshav Khairnar and Ant. Vs Keshav Pralhad Khairnar

Munirabi Abdul Wahid Died and Others Vs Bismilabi Mohd Yusuf and Others

Abdul Latifkha Bakhtawarkhan Pathan through Lrs Surayyabi Latifkhan Pathan and Others Vs Mehul Dilip Saraf and Others