Allowed¶21

Shri. Kumar Govardhan Galande and Anr. v. Shri. Avinash Benzamin More and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Dec 2025CAS/27/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; setting aside abatement of appeal; substitution/bringing on record of legal heirs of deceased respondent; non-appearing respondents despite service; interlocutory order in pending second appeal; High Court of Judicature at Bombay; Manish Pitale, J.; Civil Application No.27 of 2024 in Second Appeal No.389 of 2016; connected Civil Application No.763 of 2016; next date of hearing 11.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 4 years and 193 days condoned; abatement of the appeal as against deceased respondent No.4(a) set aside; legal heirs permitted to be brought on record with appropriate amendment of the cause title; consequential amendments directed within two weeks; appeal listed for consideration on 11.11.2025. ¶21

Shri. Kumar Govardhan Galande and Anr. vs Shri. Avinash Benzamin More and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 4 years and 193 days in moving Civil Application No.27 of 2024 for bringing the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.4(a) on record ought to be condoned and the abatement of the appeal as against the said respondent set aside.

¶14

Court's answer

Sufficient grounds are made out for condoning the delay of 4 years and 193 days; in the interest of justice the application deserves to be allowed so that the cause title can be appropriately amended and the appeal taken up for further consideration.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d); consequential amendments are to be carried out within two weeks and the appeal is listed for consideration on 11.11.2025.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Manish Pitale, J.), Second Appeal No.389 of 2016 — By order dated 08.10.2025 the Court allowed Civil Application No.27 of 2024 filed by the original appellants seeking to bring on record the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.4(a), who had expired on 12.07.2013. A delay of 4 years and 193 days in moving the application was condoned and the abatement of the appeal as against the said respondent was set aside, the Court finding sufficient grounds made out and holding that the application deserved allowance in the interest of justice so that the cause title could be amended and the appeal taken up for further consideration. The respondents, though served, did not appear either in the application or in the appeal. Consequential amendments were directed to be carried out within two weeks and the appeal was listed for consideration on 11.11.2025.

¶1

10_SA389_16.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO.389 OF 2016

¶5

Kumar Govardhan Galande and another Vs.

¶6

… Appellants

¶7

Avinash Benzamin More and others … Respondents

¶8

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.763 OF 2016

¶9

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.27 OF 2024 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.389 OF 2016

¶10

Mr. Ravindra S. Pachundkar for Appellants / Applicants.

¶11

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2025

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.27 OF 20 24

¶14

. By this application, the applicants (original appellants) are seeking permission to bring on record legal heirs of deceased respondent No.4(a). The document at exhibit-A shows that the said respondent expired on 12.07.2013. There is a delay of 4 years and 193 days in moving the application. Consequently, there are prayers for condoning the delay as well as for setting aside abatement of appeal as against the said respondent.

¶15

The record shows that the respondents were served in this application. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents.

¶16

In fact, the learned counsel for the appellants informs this Court that even in the appeal, despite service, the respondents have not appeared before this Court.

¶17

MINALSANDIPPARAB Digitally signed byMINAL SANDIPPARABDate: 2025.10.0910:20:49 +0530

¶18

1/2

¶19

10_SA389_16.doc

¶20

This Court has perused the contents of the application. Sufficient grounds are made out for condoning delay and this Court is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, the application deserves to be allowed so that the cause title can be appropriately amended and the appeal can be taken up for further consideration.

¶21

In view of the above, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d).

¶22

Consequential amendments be carried out within two weeks from today.

¶23

List the appeal for consideration on 11.11.2025.

¶24

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶25

Minal Parab

¶26

2/2

Shri. Kumar Govardhan Galande and Anr. v. Shri. Avinash Benzamin More and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Kumar Govardhan Galande and Anr. v. Shri. Avinash Benzamin More and Ors.

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

Buthello Logistics vs Citizen Credit Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

National Insurance Company Limited vs Seabird Logisolutions Ltd.

National Insurance Company Limited vs Seabird Logisolutions Ltd.

The Spl. Land Acqn. Officer (3) Mumbai and Smt. Gangabai W/O Devsi Khona and Ors. Vs the Dy. Chief Engineer (C), Metropolitan Transport Project (Railway) (Acquiring Body)

Maharashtra State Common Entrance Test Cell and Anr. vs Adarsh Infrainterio Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.

Chetan Dalal vs Star Grain and Shipping Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.