Allowed¶20

Parvatabai Ramrao Deosarkar and Others v. Praveen Deorao Deosarkar

Bombay HC6 Jan 2025CAO/700/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay of 918 days in filing restoration application; restoration of second appeal dismissed in default; recall of Registrar (Judicial) order dated 26.02.2019; costs of Rs.3,000/- to High Court Bar Library, Nagpur; Second Appeal No.337 of 2005 to be registered on original stamp number; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Jawalkar J.; decided 06-01-2025; Parvatabai Ramrao Deosarkar v. Pravin Deorao Deosarkar.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 918 days in filing the restoration application condoned subject to costs of Rs.3,000/- (payable to the High Court Bar Library, Nagpur within two weeks); the Registrar (Judicial)'s order dated 26.02.2019 dismissing Second Appeal No.337 of 2005 in default recalled; Second Appeal directed to be registered on its original stamp number subject to payment of costs. ¶20

Parvatabai Ramrao Deosarkar and Others Vs Praveen Deorao Deosarkar — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 918 days in filing the restoration application of the second appeal should be condoned. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Fault lay with the earlier counsel rather than the applicants; although the delay was around 2½ years and no due diligence was shown, the Court was inclined to allow the application subject to costs of Rs.3,000/-.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The delay of 918 days in filing the restoration application is condoned subject to costs of Rs.3,000/-.

¶15

Key takeaways

The costs of Rs.3,000/- are to be deposited within a period of two weeks to the High Court Bar Library, Nagpur.ratio¶16
Misc. Civil Application Stamp No.12422 of 2021 is allowed.ratio¶18
The order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) dated 26.02.2019 dismissing the second appeal in default is recalled.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Smt. M. S. Jawalkar, J.), 6 January 2025 — Civil Application (O) No.700 of 2021 in Misc. Civil Application Stamp No.12422 of 2021 in Second Appeal No.337 of 2005, Parvatabai Ramrao Deosarkar and others v. Pravin Deorao Deosarkar. The second appeal had been dismissed in default on 26.02.2019 by order of the Registrar (Judicial). The applicants filed a restoration application with a delay of 918 days, attributing the lapse to their earlier counsel who could not contact them; the Court observed that although the delay was around 2½ years and no due diligence was shown, it was inclined to allow the application subject to costs. Held: delay condoned subject to costs of Rs.3,000/-, to be deposited within two weeks to the High Court Bar Library, Nagpur; the Misc. Civil Application allowed; the Registrar (Judicial)'s order dated 26.02.2019 recalled; and the Registry directed to register the Second Appeal on its original stamp number, subject to payment of costs.

¶1

cao700.21.O.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION (O) NO.700 OF 2021 IN

¶5

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO.12422 OF 2021 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.337 OF 2005

¶6

(Parvatabai Ramrao Deosarkar and others Vs. Pravin Deorao Deosarkar)

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar’s Orders.

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders.

¶9

Mr. J. S. Wankhede, Advocate for Applicants/Appellants.

¶10

Mr. Vishwas Gadbaile, Advocate i/b Mr. K. S. Narwade, Advocate for Respondent.

¶11

CORAM: SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J. DATE: 6 th JANUARY, 2025.

¶12

The second appeal is dismissed in default on 26.02.2019. It is contended that the matter was listed on 11.02.2019 and earlier counsel could not contact to the present applicants. Accordingly, the matter was stand over for two weeks. However, thereafter also the learned counsel could not contact with the present applicants/appellants. It was alleged that till 26.02.2019, the second appeal was pending. However, it was revealed, after verification, on the website that the appeal is already dismissed in default on 26.02.2019. There is a delay of 918 days in filing restoration application of second appeal. It was not fault on the part of the applicants. Still the delay is around 2½ years, no due diligence is not shown. Therefore, though I am inclined to allow the application subject to costs of Rs.3000/-.

¶13

¶14

cao700.21.O.odt

¶15

For the reasons stated in the application, delay is hereby condoned subject to costs of Rs.3000/-. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶16

The amount of costs directed to be deposited within a period of two weeks to the High Court Bar Library, Nagpur.

¶17

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO.12422 OF 2021 :

¶18

For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.

¶19

The order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) dated 26.02.2019 is hereby recalled.

¶20

The Registry is directed to register the Second Appeal on its original stamp number, subject to payment of costs as directed above.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

NSN

Parvatabai Ramrao Deosarkar and Others v. Praveen Deorao Deosarkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvatabai Ramrao Deosarkar and Others v. Praveen Deorao Deosarkar

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

M/S. Radha Madhav Developers, Thr. Authorized Representative, Mr. Rajesh N. Agrawal vs Vinod Kumar S/O. Rajaram Agarwal and Another

Sau. Nirmalabai Shankar Ingle, Thr. P.O.a., Shankar Rambhau Ingle vs Shankar Shaligram Wankhade and Another

Bhartidevi Wd/O Motiram Moryani vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Department of State Excise, Mumbai and Ors.

Sau. Darshana W/O. Nandu Marbade vs Additional Commissioner, Amravati and Others

Parvatabai Ramrao Deosarkar and Others vs Praveen Deorao Deosarkar

Kusum Datta Murkhe (After Marriage) Kusum Vithoba Dhudkar and Another vs State of Maha., Thr. Its Secretary, Social Welfare Dept., Mumbai and Anr.