Pratap S/O Punjabrao Deshmukh Vs Ruprao S/O Gulabrao Deshmukh (Dead)and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pratap S/O Punjabrao Deshmukh Vs Ruprao S/O Gulabrao Deshmukh (Dead)and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 1005 days and 296 days respectively condoned for bringing on record the legal representatives of respondent Nos.4 and 9; order of abatement set aside; applicant permitted to record the legal representatives; amendment to be carried out within two weeks; notice thereafter to the newly added respondents, returnable in the week commencing from 24.02.2025; parties additionally to submit on the decree-passed-against-dead-person aspect on the next date.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1005 days and 296 days respectively in filing applications to bring on record the legal representatives of respondent Nos.4 and 9 should be condoned. +2 more

Court's answer

The order of abatement is set aside and the applicant is permitted to bring on record the legal representatives of respondent Nos.4 and 9.

Ratio / Principle

None of the respondents appeared before the court; therefore there was no challenge to the applicant's plea of knowledge, which the court accepted together with the reasons set out in the applications.

Key takeaways

The delay of 1005 days and 296 days respectively is condoned and the applications are allowed and disposed of.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Anil L. Pansare, J.; 22nd January 2025), in Civil Application (S) Nos. 414, 415, 416 and 417 of 2023 in Second Appeal No. 57 of 2022 (Pratap Punjabrao Deshmukh v. Ruprao Gulabrao Deshmukh and Ors.): the applicant/appellant sought to bring on record the legal representatives of respondent Nos. 4 and 9, condoning delays of 1005 and 296 days respectively. With none appearing for the respondents, the plea of recently acquired knowledge went unchallenged; the court allowed the applications, condoned the delay, set aside the order of abatement and permitted the legal representatives to be recorded, directing completion of amendment within two weeks and issue of notice to the newly added respondents returnable in the week commencing 24.02.2025. The court noted that respondent No. 2-a before the First Appellate Court had expired during the pendency of the appeal, that the then-appellants (present respondent Nos. 1 and 2) had failed to disclose that death, and that consequently the judgment and decree had been passed against a dead person; the parties were asked to make submissions on this aspect at the next date.

55 CAS-414-2023

1

2025:BHC-NAG:691

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

CIVIL APPLICATION (S) NO.414 OF 2023 WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION (S) NO.415 OF 2023 AND

CIVIL APPLICATION (S) NO.416 OF 2023 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (S) NO.417 OF 2023 IN

SECOND APPEAL NO.57 OF 2022

[Pratap Punjabrao Deshmukh ..vs.. Ruprao Gulabrao Deshmukh and Ors.]

__________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

Mr S. Y. Deopujari, Advocate for Applicant/Appellant.

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE, J. DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2025.

Heard.

By present applications, the applicant/appellant intends to bring on record the legal representatives of respondent Nos.4 and 9 by condoning the delay of 1005 and 296 days respectively.

The counsel for applicant submits that the applicant came to know of the said fact recently and accordingly, the applications are filed.

None appears for respondents. Thus, there is no challenge to the plea of knowledge taken by the applicant. In view thereof and for the reasons set out in the applications, the applications are allowed and disposed of. The delay is condoned. The order of abatement is set aside. The applicant is permitted to bring on record the legal representatives of respondent Nos.4 and 9.

55 CAS-414-2023

2

Amendment be carried out within two weeks from today.

Issue notice thereafter to the newly added respondents, returnable in the week commencing from 24.02.2025.

It is worth to mention here that the respondent No.2-a before the First Appellate Court expired pending appeal. The present appellant was the respondent No.1 before the First Appellate Court. The present respondent Nos.1 and 2 were appellants before the First Appellate Court. They failed to disclose the fact of death of respondent No.4 (original respondent No.2-a before the First Appellate Court), and therefore, the judgment and decree is passed against a dead person.

The parties shall make their submissions on this aspect on next date.

JUDGE

TAMBE