Shri Murlidhar Mandir Devasthan Trust Pundi v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC17 Apr 2025CA/2958/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 2107 days; impleading legal representatives of deceased respondent; writ petition 9785/2014; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; 2025:BHC-AUG:15928; Shaikh Yakub Shaikh Mehboob; Murlidhar Mandir Devasthan Trust Pundi; State of Maharashtra; Khubalkar J.; 24 June 2025; respondent Nos.4-A and 4-B.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 2107 days condoned; legal representatives of deceased respondent No.4 to be brought on record by amendment within two weeks. ¶¶25

Shri Murlidhar Mandir Devasthan Trust Pundi vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

(1)

¶2

2025:BHC-AUG:15928

¶3

2958.25ca

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

906 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2958 OF 2025 IN/WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.9785/2014

¶7

SHRI MURLIDHAR MANDIR DEVASTHAN TRUST PUNDI VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶9

Mr Ram. B. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant Ms R. R. Tandale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Mr K. D. Jadhav, Advocate h/f Mr V. D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent Nos.4-A and 4-B and 6 to 14

¶10

Mr S. S. Tambe, Advocate h/f Mr S. S. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 & 6

¶11

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

¶12

DATE : 24th June, 2025

¶13

PER COURT:

¶14

This is an application for bringing on record the legal

¶15

representatives of deceased respondent No.4/Shaikh Yakub Shaikh Mehboob by condoning delay of 2107 days caused in filing present application.

¶16

In response to the notices on the civil application,

¶17

Advocate Mr V. D. Salunke appears for the proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent No.4, who are added as respondent Nos.4-A and 4-B to the civil application.

¶18

2958.25ca

¶19

(2)

¶20

Heard Advocate Mr Ram Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that the writ petition was listed for final disposal at the stage of admission on 05/02/2025, and it was adjourned to 20/02/2025. He further submits that, on 20/02/2025, Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 14 informed that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have expired during the pendency of the petition and the matter was adjourned for taking necessary steps against deceased respondent Nos.4 and 5. He then submits that the applicant/petitioner was not at all aware about death of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Only after getting the knowledge, he filed the present application. He, therefore, submits that the delay occurred is because the petitioner was unaware of the death of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the same is unintentional.

¶21

Considering the reasons mentioned in the civil application at paragraph Nos.3 and 4 and the submissions advanced, I am of the view that delay of 2107 days needs to be condoned, particularly when the petitioner was not at all aware of the death of respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶22

Advocate Mr Salunke, learned counsel for proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent Nos.4 has no serious objection for bringing on record legal representatives of deceased respondent No.4.

¶23

2958.25ca

¶24

(3)

¶25

In view of the above, this civil application is allowed and disposed of, by condoning the delay of 2107 days. The names of legal representatives of deceased respondent No.4/Shaikh Yakub Shaikh Mehboob be brought on record by carrying out necessary amendment within a period of two weeks from today.

¶26

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶27

sjk

Shri Murlidhar Mandir Devasthan Trust Pundi v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Murlidhar Mandir Devasthan Trust Pundi v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati, Thr. Registrar, Amravati vs Ravindra J. Sayam

Dilip S/O Uttamrao Chhabile and Others vs Pandharinath S/O Narayan Deokar and Others

Hema Govardhan Shinde and Others Vs Govardhan Hanmantrao Shinde and Others

Vasudeo Anandrao Pawar and Others vs Ashok Pandurang Adhau and Others

Md. Yunus Opai S/O. Abdul Aziz Opai and Ors. vs M/S. 4 Wall Developers, Partnership Firm, Thr. Managing Partner, Sanjay Manohar Bhoot and Anr.

Subhash Ganeshrao Dharkar Vs the Managing Director Bhaurao Chavan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Others