Roopa Kamath Iyer vs Radha Ramesh Kamath (Deceased) — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Roopa Kamath Iyer vs Radha Ramesh Kamath (Deceased) — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 1026 days in filing the Interim Application condoned; order dated 2nd May, 2018 dismissing the petition for want of prosecution and order dated 18th January, 2024 of the Prothonotary and Senior Master set aside; Testamentary Petition No. 356 of 2016 restored (granted in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c)); Interim Application disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of the delay of 1026 days in filing the Interim Application for restoration. +1 more

Court's answer

Sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant to allow the Interim Application as prayed for.

Ratio / Principle

Substantive justice would be served by allowing the Interim Application.

Key takeaways

Since the petition is for probate, no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties in the petition if the Interim Application is allowed.obiter¶22
The Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c), i.e., the delay of 1026 days is condoned, the orders dated 2nd May, 2018 and 18th January, 2024 are set aside, and the Testamentary Petition is restored; the Interim Application stands disposed of.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction), Arif S. Doctor, J. — Interim Application No. 515 of 2025 in Testamentary Petition No. 356 of 2016 (applicant/original petitioner Rupa Kamath Iyer; deceased Radha Ramesh Kamath): Delay of 1026 days in filing the interim application for restoration condoned. The order dated 2nd May, 2018 dismissing the probate petition for want of prosecution and the order dated 18th January, 2024 of the Prothonotary and Senior Master dismissing the restoration application were set aside and the Testamentary Petition restored. The Court found that sufficient cause had been shown and that substantive justice would be served by allowing the application, noting further that as the petition is for probate, no prejudice would be caused to any party.

910-IA-515-2025.doc

Shailaja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.515 OF 2025

IN

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.356 OF 2016

Rupa Kamath Iyer	]	Applicant/Original
		Petitioner
IN THE MATTER OF :
Radha Ramesh Kamath	]	Deceased
Rupa Kamath Iyer	]	Petitioner

Mr. Rthythm Rathod i/b Nitesh Mishra, for Applicant/Original Petitioner.

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 26th MARCH, 2025.

P.C:

1. Interim Application seeks following reliefs;

(a)That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to condone the delay of 1026 days in filing the present Interim Application.

(b)That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the order dated 2nd May, 2018 passed the Hon’ble Court thereby dismissing the above petition suit for want of prosecution and restore the same;

1 of 3

SHAILAJASHRIKANT Digitally signed by SHAILAJASHRIKANT HALKUDEDate: 2025.03.28 11:25:30 HALKUDE +0530

910-IA-515-2025.doc

(c)that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the order dated 18th January, 2024 passed by the Hon’ble Court thereby dismissing the above petition for want of prosecution and thereafter restore the said present petition;

(d) For such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case as may be required”.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant invited my attention to paragraph 7 of the Interim Application. He points out the the reasons for which the applicant was unable to remove office objections within time granted vide order dated 2nd May, 2018. He submits that Interim Application for restoration came to be dismissed by Prothonotary and Senior Master vide an order dated 18 th January, 2024.

Having due regard to the submissions made in the Interim Application and having heard learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, I am of the view that sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant to allow the Interim Application as prayed for. I am of the view that substantive justice would be served by allowing the Interim Application.

2 of 3

910-IA-515-2025.doc

Furthermore, I must note that petition is for probate and, as such, no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties in the petition if the Interim Application is allowed.

Thus, Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c).

Interim Application stands disposed of.

[ARIF S. DOCTOR J.]

3 of 3