Allowed¶26

Shashikala D/o Narayan Shetge v. Narayan S/o Laxman Shetge (Deceased)

Bombay HC2 Jan 2025IA/3506/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC Testamentary Jurisdiction; Interim Application 3506/2024 in TP 927/2021; condonation of delay of 578 days; dismissal for non-removal of office objections by common order dated 10 January 2023; super-senior citizen Applicant; Medical Certificate dated 29 August 2024; one last chance granted; deadline 30 January 2025 to remove office objections else automatic dismissal; Arif S. Doctor, Judge; decision dated 2 January 2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 578 days condoned (prayer clause (i)) and extension of time of eight weeks from the date of the order to restore the said petition (prayer clause (ii)), subject to the condition that failure to comply with the office objections on or before 30th January 2025 would result in the Petition standing dismissed without further reference to the Court. ¶26

Shashikala D/o Narayan Shetge vs Narayan S/o Laxman Shetge (Deceased) — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the Interim Application seeking condonation of the 578-day delay and an eight-week extension of time to restore/dispose of the office objections in respect of the Testamentary Petition should be allowed.

¶16

Court's answer

Having considered the overall submissions and averments in the Application, the Court found that the interest of justice would require one last chance to be given to the Applicant and was inclined to allow the Interim Application.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The Interim Application was allowed in terms of prayer clauses (i) (condonation of the 578-day delay) and (ii) (extension of eight weeks from the date of the order to restore the petition).

¶26

Key takeaways

The Medical Certificate dated 29th August 2024 produced in support did not state that the Applicant was indisposed during the time within which the office objections were to be removed.obiter¶24
It was expressly directed that if the office objections are not complied with on or before 30th January 2025, the Petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Arif S. Doctor, J): Testamentary Petition No. 927 of 2021 had been dismissed by a common order dated 10th January 2023 because office objections were not removed within the prescribed time. By Interim Application No. 3506 of 2024, the Applicant (a super-senior citizen) sought condonation of a 578-day delay and eight weeks' time to restore the petition. Although the supporting Medical Certificate dated 29th August 2024 did not state that the Applicant was indisposed during the relevant period, the Court held that the interest of justice required one last chance to be given and allowed the Interim Application in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (ii), directing that if the office objections were not complied with on or before 30th January 2025 the Petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.

¶1

5-IA-3506-2024-IN-TP-927-2021.DOC

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3506 OF 2024

¶6

¶7

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 927 OF 2021

¶8

Shashikala D/o Narayan Shetge

¶9

...Applicant/ Petitioner

¶10

Narayan s/o Laxman Shetge …Deceased

¶11

Mr Shrikant V Girbide , for the Applicant/Petitioner.

¶12

SHEPHALI SANJAY MORMARE

¶13

Digitally signed by SHEPHALI SANJAY MORMARE Date: 2025.01.03 10:04:04 +0530

¶14

CORAM: ARIF S. DOCTOR, J DATED: 2ND JANUARY 2025

¶15

PC:-

¶16

By the present Interim Application, the Applicant seeks the following reliefs:

¶17

“(i) that the application for delay of 578 days may kindly be pleased to allowed that, delay of 578 days may kindly pleased be condoned.

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

5-IA-3506-2024-IN-TP-927-2021.DOC

¶20

(ii) That the Applicant may kindly be permitted to allowing be order of extension of time for eight weeks from the date of passing order to restore the said petition.

¶21

(iii) For costs,

¶22

(iv) For such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may be granted.”

¶23

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the captioned Testamentary Petition came to be dismissed by a common order dated 10th January 2023 since the office objections were not removed within the time prescribed vide the common order.

¶24

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant has invited my attention to the averments made in the Application and pointed out that the said could not be complied with since the Applicant is at advanced stage being super-senior citizen. In support of his contention he invited my attention to the Medical Certificate dated 29th August 2024. The same does not in any manner states that the Applicant was indisposed during the time in which the office objections were to be removed.

¶25

Having considered the overall submissions and averments made in the Application, I find that the interest of justice would require one last chance be given to the Applicant and it is thus, I am inclined to allow the present Interim Application.

¶26

The Interim Application is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (ii) extracted above.

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

5-IA-3506-2024-IN-TP-927-2021.DOC

¶29

It is further made clear that in the event the office objections are not complied with on or before 30th January 2025, the Petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.

¶30

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J)

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Shashikala D/o Narayan Shetge v. Narayan S/o Laxman Shetge (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikala D/o Narayan Shetge v. Narayan S/o Laxman Shetge (Deceased)

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

Similar cases

Vir Krishna Kotak vs Hl Terminal Holding B.V.

Horatius Joseph Fonseca vs Priscilla Horatius Fonseca (Deceased)

Mrs Moushami Amit Bajaj and Others vs M/S Kamalashri Builders and Others

Shakuntala Mahendra Jhobalia vs Mahendra Dharamshi Jhobalia Alias Shah (Deceased)

Uday Champaklal Shah vs Rasiklal Swaroopchand Shah (Deceased No 1)

Fatima Anthony Fernandes @ Fatima Sebestian Dmello vs Sebestian Dmello (Deceased)