Allowed¶8

Errol Jerome Sequeira and Anr. v. Thelma Stanny (Stanley) Dsouza (Deceased)

Bombay HC23 Sept 2025CHOL/449/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 252 days; Chamber Order CHOL/449/2025 in TPL/32343/2022; setting aside rejection of Petition dated 28.03.2024; O.S.Rule 986; non-compliance of office objections; payment of court fees; personal financial difficulties; substantial justice versus technical grounds; restoration of petition; petition uncontested; one week to cure office objections; Prothonotary & Senior Master; order dated 30.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 252 days in filing the Chamber Order condoned; Chamber Order granted as prayed (challenging the order dated 28.03.2024 rejecting the Petition); petitioner directed to remove office objections and get the Petition registered/numbered within one week of upload of the order, failing which the Petition stands rejected under O.S.Rule 986. ¶8

Errol Jerome Sequeira and Anr. vs Thelma Stanny (Stanley) Dsouza (Deceased) — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 252 days in filing the present Chamber Order (taken out to set aside the order dated 28.03.2024) should be condoned. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

Grounds mentioned in the Affidavit appear to be bonafide and substantial justice cannot be denied on technical ground; the applicant should get one opportunity in the matter.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

In the interest of justice, the delay of 252 days caused in filing the present Chamber Order is condoned and the present Chamber Order is granted as prayed.

¶8

Key takeaways

The petitioner is directed to remove the office objections of the Petition and get it registered and/or numbered within a week from the date of uploading of the order, failing which the Petition shall stand rejected for non-compliance of office objections under O.S.Rule 986.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chamber Order (12 CHOL/449/2025) in TPL/32343/2022, before the Prothonotary & Senior Master (30.09.2025): Condonation of 252 days' delay in filing a Chamber Order seeking setting aside of the order dated 28.03.2024, whereby the captioned Petition was rejected under O.S.Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections relating to payment of court fees. Held: the grounds in the Affidavit (personal financial difficulties) appear bonafide; substantial justice cannot be denied on technical ground; delay condoned and Chamber Order granted as prayed, the Petition being uncontested as on date. Petitioner to remove office objections and secure registration/numbering of the Petition within one week from upload of the order, failing which the Petition shall stand rejected under O.S.Rule 986.

¶1

Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 30^th September, 2025

¶2

FOR DIRECTION :

¶3

12 CHOL/449/2025 in

¶4

TPL/32343/2022

¶5

Mr. M. N. Shaikh, Advocate for the applicant.

¶6

¶7

) P.C.: The present Chamber Order is taken out by ) the applicant for setting aside Order dated ) 28.03.2024, rejecting captioned Petition under ) O.S.Rule 986 for non-compliance of office ) objections. ) ) Heard ld. Advocate for the applicant. Perused ) Affidavit in Support, contents of which are ) self-explanatory. It is contended that office

¶8

) Heard ld. Advocate for the applicant. Perused ) Affidavit in Support, contents of which are ) self-explanatory. It is contended that office ) objections with respect to payment of court ) fees could not be complied with due to ) personal financial difficulties and for the same ) reason, delay of 252 days caused in filing ) present Chamber Order, which was ) unintentional. It is further contended that ) grave prejudice would cause to the petitioner ) if captioned Petition is not restored to file. Ld. ) Advocate for the applicant made a statement ) that as on date, captioned Petition is ) uncontested. Statement is accepted. ) ) Grounds mentioned in the Affidavit, appear to ) be bonafide and substantial justice cannot be ) denied on technical ground. Hence, I am of ) the view that the applicant should get one ) opportunity in the matter. Hence, in the ) interest of justice, delay of 252 days caused in ) filing present Chamber Order is condoned and ) present Chamber Order is granted as prayed ) and signed separately. ) ) The petitioner to remove office objections of ) Petition and get the same registered and/or ) numbered within a week from the date of ) uploading of order, failing Petition to stand ) rejected for non-compliance of of office ) objections under O.S.Rule 986.

¶9

The petitioner to remove office objections of Petition and get the same registered and/or numbered within a week from the date of uploading of order, failing Petition to stand rejected for non-compliance of of office objections under O.S.Rule 986.

¶10

Prothonotary and Senior Master

¶11

Date : 30.09.2025

¶12

Digitally signed by RAJEEVVIJAYACHARYA RAJEEV VIJAYACHARYADate:2025.10.01 10:46:01 +0530

Errol Jerome Sequeira and Anr. v. Thelma Stanny (Stanley) Dsouza (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Errol Jerome Sequeira and Anr. v. Thelma Stanny (Stanley) Dsouza (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lata Kashinath Panchal vs Late Shobha Kashinath Panchal Alias Shubhangi Kashinath Panchal (Deceased)

Tushar Durganand Phene vs Tara Durganand Phene (Deceased)

Varsha Rakesh Sharma vs Rakesh Suresh Sharma Deceased

Nirajkumar Nirmalkumar Rungta alias Niraj Nirmalkumar Rungta vs Purshottam Mahabirprasad Rungta

Bhikaji Namdeo Chavan vs Late Samidha Bhikaji Chavan

Kaushal Mayank Mehta vs Mayank Mangaldas Mehta