Allowed¶22

Nawman Malik S O Late M.H. Malik v. Marie D Mello D/O. Subastian D Mello

Bombay HC5 Mar 2025IA/14052/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay condonation; setting aside rejection of civil application; conditional order dated 12.01.2024; default in payment of costs Rs. 10,000/-; substitution of deposit in Court for payment to respondent; no notice to absent respondent though served; First Appeal (ST) No. 16179 of 2016; CA/2856/2016; I.A. No. 14052 of 2024; Bombay High Court; M.M. Sathaye, J.; interim application allowed and disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of CA/2856/2016 under the conditional order dated 12.01.2024 set aside; subject to the Applicant depositing costs of Rs. 10,000/- in Court within four weeks, the delay condonation application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); the Respondent is at liberty to withdraw the costs; interim application disposed of accordingly. ¶22

Nawman Malik S O Late M.H. Malik vs Marie D Mello D/O. Subastian D Mello — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection, under the conditional order dated 12.01.2024, of the Applicant's application for condonation of delay (CA/2856/2016) ought to be set aside in light of the Applicant's explanation for failing to pay/deposit the imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Considering the averments made in the application, the interim application is allowed and the rejection of CA/2856/2016 under the conditional order dated 12.01.2024 is set aside.

¶19

Key takeaways

Since nobody had appeared for the Respondent when the conditional order was passed on 12.01.2024 though served, no useful purpose would be served by sending notice to the Respondent; instead, the costs were directed to be deposited in the Court with liberty to the Respondent to withdraw the same.ratio¶18
Subject to the Applicant depositing costs of Rs. 10,000/- in this Court within four weeks, CA/2856/2016 shall stand allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and the delay shall stand condoned.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (M.M. Sathaye, J.) allowed an interim application seeking setting aside of the rejection of Civil Application No. 2856/2016 (condonation of delay in First Appeal (ST) No. 16179 of 2016), which stood rejected under the conditional order dated 12.01.2024 requiring the applicant to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent within stipulated time. The applicant explained that attempts to tender the costs by cheque at the respondent's address failed as she was not found, that one Mr. Pandey at that address informed him she had sold the premises and shifted to Goa, that the respondent advocates' office was found closed, and that professional travel and medical treatment prevented him from contacting his advocate. Holding that no useful purpose would be served by issuing notice since nobody appeared for the respondent though served, the Court set aside the rejection and, subject to the applicant depositing Rs. 10,000/- in Court within four weeks, allowed the delay condonation application in terms of prayer clause (a), granting the respondent liberty to withdraw the costs.

¶1

11-IA-14052-2024.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by HUSENBASHA HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN RAHAMAN NADAF NADAF Date: 2025.12.23 19:45:06 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 14052 OF 2024

¶4

IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2856 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 16179 OF 2016

¶5

Nawman Malik ...Applicant/Appellant Versus Marie D’ Mello ...Respondent

¶6

¶7

Mr. Ritesh singh i/b. Mr. Sanjeev Singh for the Applicant. None for Respondents.

¶8

¶9

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 23^rd DECEMBER, 2025

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the Applicant. This is an application for setting aside the rejection of application for delay condonation which was granted conditionally under the order dated 12.01.2024 passed in CA/2856/2016.

¶12

Perusal of the said order shows that the condition upon the Applicant was to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Respondent within stipulated time. Learned counsel for the Applicant invited the Court’s attention to the statements made in paragraph Nos.2 & 3 of the application, to contend that when the amount of costs was sought to be tendered through a cheque, at the address of the Respondent, she was not found and it was informed by one Mr. Pandey (who was available at the said address) that the Respondent has already sold the said premises and shifted to Goa. It is stated in the paragraph

Page 1 of 2

Husen

11-IA-14052-2024.doc

No.3 that the advocates of the Respondent was also sought to be contacted personally. However, their office was found closed.

¶17

It is further stated that in the meantime, the Applicant was required to travel for professional work and was undergoing medical treatment and therefore he was unable to contact the advocate. It is stated that recently he was informed that for non supply of proof of payment of costs, the application has been rejected.

¶18

It is seen that when the conditional order was passed on 12.01.2024, nobody had appeared for the Respondent though served. As such, no useful purpose will be served by sending notice to the Respondent. Instead, the costs can be directed to be deposited in the Court and the Respondent can be set at liberty to withdraw the same.

¶19

In that view of the matter, considering the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. The rejection of CA/2856/2016 under conditional order dated 12.01.2024 is set aside.

¶20

Subject to Applicant depositing costs of Rs. 10,000/- in this Court, within a period fo 4 weeks from today, CA/2856/2016 shall be allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and delay shall be condoned.

¶21

The Respondent is at liberty to withdraw the costs.

¶22

Interim application is disposed of in above terms.

¶23

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

¶24

Page 2 of 2

¶25

Husen

Nawman Malik S O Late M.H. Malik v. Marie D Mello D/O. Subastian D Mello

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nawman Malik S O Late M.H. Malik v. Marie D Mello D/O. Subastian D Mello

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

Khan Tanvir Ahmed Adam Khan Since Decd Throu. L.H and Anr. vs Shri.Harun Musa Menon (Since Decd) Thr. His Heirs and Ors.

Pushpita Veenesh Sinha vs Veenesh Chandrabhushan Sharan Priyadarshi (Sinha)

Shri. Vijay Kisan Alias Krishna Savekar vs Vasant Ramchandra Savekarand Ors.

Walter Murzello vs Alban Jacinto Murzello and Ors.

Bindia Jayendra Garasia W/O Nilesh Mehta and Ors. vs M/S Saket Co-Operative Housing Ltd. Mumbai and Ors.

Aasif a. Rahiman Shaikh and Ors. vs Dilip Appanna Awati and Ors.