Allowed¶7

Ashok Martand Hile and Anr. v. Shankar Laxman Hinge and Thr. Poa Dnayeshwar Shankar Hinge Ors.

Bombay HC27 Feb 2025IA/2164/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 346 days; abatement set aside; legal heirs brought on record; deceased respondent; duty of advocate to intimate death; knowledge of death as starting point; Mamlatdar's Courts Act 1906 Section 5; Sub-Divisional Officer revision; Bombay High Court; Sharmila U. Deshmukh; Interim Application 2164/2024; Writ Petition 2432/2023; impleadment of LRs.

What did the court decide?

Interim Application allowed; delay of 346 days in filing it condoned; abatement set aside; amendment to bring the legal heirs of deceased Respondent No. 1 on record to be carried out within two weeks. ¶7

Ashok Martand Hile and Anr. vs Shankar Laxman Hinge and Thr. Poa Dnayeshwar Shankar Hinge Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 346 days in filing the Interim Application for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased Respondent No. 1 ought to be condoned and whether the resulting abatement ought to be set aside.

¶1

Court's answer

It was the duty of the Advocate representing Respondent No. 1 to intimate Respondent No. 1's death, along with details of the legal heirs, so as to enable the Applicants to take out an appropriate application within time.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The question of condonation of delay falls to be considered from the date on which the Applicants acquired knowledge of the death of Respondent No. 1.

¶5

Key takeaways

The Applicants' plea that they became aware of the deaths of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 only when the Writ Petition was listed for admission on 23rd January, 2024 was accepted, especially as the Advocate for the Respondents never intimated the deaths to the Advocate for the Applicants; the delay was therefore satisfactorily explained.ratio¶6
The Interim Application is allowed; the delay of 346 days stands condoned and the abatement is set aside, with amendment to be carried out within two weeks.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.), Interim Application No. 2164 of 2024 in Writ Petition No. 2432 of 2023, decided 26-11-2025: Condonation of 346-day delay in impleading the legal heirs of a deceased respondent. Held (i) that the advocate on record for the deceased respondent was under a duty to intimate the death together with details of the legal heirs so that the opposite party could apply in time, and (ii) that delay in such matters runs from the date the applicant acquires knowledge of the death, not from the date of death. As the Respondents' advocate conceded that no intimation of the deaths was ever given, the Applicants' claim that they learnt of the deaths only when the Writ Petition was listed for admission on 23-01-2024 was accepted; the delay was held satisfactorily explained. Delay of 346 days condoned, abatement set aside, amendment directed within two weeks. Underlying dispute arose from a Mamlatdar's order under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906, carried in revision to the Sub-Divisional Officer.

¶1

2025:BHC-AS:10187

¶2

903 IA-2164-2024.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2164 OF 2024 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2432 OF 2023

¶6

Ashok Martand Hile & Another ...Applicants Versus Shankar Laxman Hinge (since deceased, through LRs) and Others ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Prabhakar M. Jadhav, Ms. Suchita Chavan i/b Mr. Vishal Kolekar for Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Abhijit G. Aher (through VC) i/b Mr. Mahendra Karnawat for Respondent Nos. 1b and 1c.

¶9

——————

¶10

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : 26^th November, 2025.

¶11

P. C. :

¶12

1. Interim Application has been preferred for bringing on record

¶13

the legal heirs of the deceased-Respondent No. 1 and for condonation of delay of 346 days caused in filing the Interim Application.

¶14

2. Learned counsel appearing for Applicant submits that the Applicants were the Respondents in Revision Application filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer against the order of Mamlatdar passed under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906. He submits that during the pendency of Writ Petition, the Respondent No. 1 expired on

¶15

1 of 3

¶16

Sairaj

¶17

903 IA-2164-2024.doc

¶18

6^th August, 2022 and Applicants were not aware of the death of Respondent No. 1. He submits that Writ Petition was listed for admission on 23^rd January, 2024 with remark that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had expired at which point of time, the Applicants acquired knowledge of death of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He submits that on 20^th February, 2024, the Application had been taken out for bringing the legal heirs on record.

¶19

3. Learned counsel appearing for proposed Respondents would submit that the Applicants as well as Respondents are residents of the same village and therefore, they were aware of death of Respondent No. 1.

¶20

4. Upon query by this Court, learned counsel appearing for the proposed Respondents submits that there was no information given to Advocate for Petitioner about the death of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶21

5. The Respondent No. 1 was duly represented by an Advocate and it was duty of the Advocate for Respondent No. 1 to intimate the death of Respondent No. 1 along with details of legal heirs so as to enable the Applicant to take out appropriate application within time. The issue of condonation of delay is required to be considered from the date of acquisition of knowledge of death of Respondent No. 1.

¶22

6. The Application specifically pleads that it is only when the Writ Petition was listed for admission on 23^rd January, 2024, the Applicants

¶23

2 of 3

¶24

Sairaj

¶25

903 IA-2164-2024.doc

¶26

became aware of death of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. There is no reason as to why the said plea should not be accepted particularly considering the Advocate for Respondents has not bothered to intimate the Advocate for Applicant about the death of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The delay has thus been satisfactorily explained in the Application.

¶27

7. In light of above, Interim Application is allowed.

¶28

8. The delay of 346 days stands condoned and abatement is set

¶29

aside. Amendment to be carried out within period of two weeks from today.

¶30

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

¶31

3 of 3

¶32

Sairaj

Ashok Martand Hile and Anr. v. Shankar Laxman Hinge and Thr. Poa Dnayeshwar Shankar Hinge Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Martand Hile and Anr. v. Shankar Laxman Hinge and Thr. Poa Dnayeshwar Shankar Hinge Ors.

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

Shri Shagir Ahmed Siddique and Anr. vs M/S. Pasa Interior Decorators and Ors.

Time Star Limited vs Themis Medicare Limited

Mahendra Sakharam Keni Lrs. of Appellant No. 5 Shashikala Sakharam Patil/ Keni and Ors. vs Kailashchandra Babulal Deora and Anr.

Bisleri International Private Limited vs Biplab Saha

Phonographic Performance Limited vs Adwalpalkar Constructions and Resorts Private Limited

Phonographic Performance Limited vs Global Food and Beverages