Dismissed¶17

Sushila Ramesh Kanjar v. Nareshkumar Javharilal Jain

Bombay HC23 Jun 2025CA/2228/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 960 days delay; abatement; abatement as legal fiction; legal heirs of deceased appellant; setting aside abatement; second appeal SA/87/2025; Civil Application No.2228 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad; Shailesh P. Brahme, J.; decided 23 June 2025; civil application rejected/dismissed; applicant Sushila Ramesh Kanjar; caveator/respondent Nareshkumar Javharilal Jain; deceased Applicant No.3 Mangala Dinesh Kanjar (died 28.02.2022); no statute or precedent case discussed in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Abatement of an appeal due to the death of a party is a legal fiction and no independent order is required to be passed for setting it aside. ¶15

Sushila Ramesh Kanjar Vs Nareshkumar Javharilal Jain — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:15856

¶2

1 27(i).CA-2228-2025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2228 OF 2025 IN SA/87/2025

¶5

SUSHILA RAMESH KANJAR VERSUS

¶6

NARESHKUMAR JAVHARILAL JAIN

¶7

Advocate for the Applicant : Mr. Girish V.Wani i/by. Mr.Niranjan Vasant Dhake Advocate for Respondent No.1-A (Caveator) : Mr.S.P.Shah

¶8

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 23^rd JUNE 2025

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

. This application is for condonation of delay of 960 days in bringing heirs of deceased Applicant no.3-Mangala Dinesh Kanjar on record and setting aside abatement.

¶11

It is contended that Applicant No.3-Mangala Dinesh Kanjar died on 28.02.2022 during pendency of appeal before lower appellate court. Her heirs are on record as the Respondent Nos.3-A to 3-C. As there was no independent order of setting aside abatement and the heirs are necessary parties, delay is sought to be condoned.

¶12

Learned counsel Mr.Subodh Shah would oppose the application. It is contended that Applicant No.3 died during pendency of appeal and no steps were taken to bring her heirs on record which resulted into abatement of appeal as against the

¶13

2 27(i).CA-2228-2025.doc

¶14

Applicant No.3 in lower appellate court itself. Resultantly present second appeal filed by the appellant also becomes incompetent to the extent of Applicant No.3. The legal heirs have filed appeal alongwith other appellants without following due procedure of law.

¶15

Applicant No.3 died during pendency of appeal. The steps were not taken within stipulated period and hence appeal before the lower appellate court was abated to her extent. No steps were taken to set aside the abatement in time. Present appeal to the extent of deceased Applicant No.3 is incompetent. Besides that civil application does not show any explanation for condonation of delay. Abatement of the appeal due to the death of the party is a legal fiction, for which no independent order is required to be passed.

¶16

For the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to allow the application.

¶17

6. Civil application is rejected.

¶18

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]

¶19

vsj..

Sushila Ramesh Kanjar v. Nareshkumar Javharilal Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushila Ramesh Kanjar v. Nareshkumar Javharilal Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Habib Khan S/O Jabbar Khan Pathan vs State of Maharashtra through Collector Hingoli and Others

Manager Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Authorized Signatory Vs Prakash Balasaheb Kale and Others

United India Insurance Co. Through Its Branch Manager Vs Tehniyat Sayyad Taha Khadri and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Thr the Collector Aurangabad and Ors. Vs Bhaulal Bhimrao Harne

Mubarak Abbas Ali Vs Fate Mohammad Jan Mohammad Raj and Ors.

Faheem Press Khajabhai Vs Fate Mohammad Jan Mohammad Raj and Ors.