Disposed¶12

Smt. Swati Sunil Khuspe and Ors. v. Sandip Gayandev Yadav and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Mar 2025IA/9377/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registrar (Judl-II), Bombay HC, 12/03/2025; I.A. 9377/2024 in First Appeal (ST) 14969/2023; death of Respondent No. 3 Smt. Pushpa Bajrang Khuspe (Bailiff report 29/01/2025); Chapter VII Rule 6(2) Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960; 90-day abatement rule; failure to substitute legal representatives/heirs; last opportunity of two weeks granted; automatic abatement against deceased respondent on default; advocates Sumit Sonare and Prathmesh Bhargude for Applicant.

What did the court decide?

One final opportunity of two weeks granted to the appellant's advocate to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 3; on failure, the proceedings stand abated against her without further reference to the Registrar. ¶12

Smt. Swati Sunil Khuspe and Ors. vs Sandip Gayandev Yadav and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether, the prescribed time under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 3 on record having expired and no steps having been taken, the appeal should stand abated against the deceased respondent forthwith or one final opportunity should be afforded to the appellant.

¶11

Court's answer

The prescribed time to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 3 as provided under the 1960 Rules has expired; two weeks earlier granted were not utilised and the matter lay without progress.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Instead of ordering abatement outrightly, one opportunity is granted: the appellant's advocate is directed to take appropriate steps to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 3, if any, within two weeks.

¶12

Key takeaways

On failure to comply within two weeks, the proceedings would stand abated against deceased Respondent No. 3 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction — Registrar (Judl-II) order dated 12/03/2025 in Interim Application No. 9377 of 2024 in First Appeal (ST) No. 14969 of 2023. Respondent No. 3, Smt. Pushpa Bajrang Khuspe, was reported dead by the appellant's advocate and per Bailiff's report dt 29/01/2025. The Interim Application for bringing her legal representatives on record was listed a second time before the Registrar; two weeks earlier granted produced no steps. Holding the prescribed time under Chapter VII, Rule 6(2), Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 to have expired, the Registrar nonetheless declined to pass an order of abatement outrightly and instead gave one final opportunity of two weeks to the appellant's advocate to bring the legal representatives on record, directing that on failure the proceedings would stand abated against deceased Respondent No. 3 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9377 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 14969 OF 2023

¶3

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s order appearance, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders

¶4

CORAM : SHRI S. R. AGRAWAL REGISTRAR (JUDL -II)

¶5

DATE : 12/03/2025

¶6

Adv. Sumit Sonare i/by Adv. Prathmesh Bhargude present for Applicant.

¶7

Respondent No. 3 namely Smt. Pushpa Bajrang Khuspe is reported to be dead as per submission made by the learned advocate for appellant and as per Bailiff’s report dt 29/01/2025.

¶8

The above numbered Interim Application is listed for second time on the board of Registrar for taking steps to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 3 on record. Already two weeks time was granted. However, despite of granting two weeks time, learned Advocate for the Applicant has not taken any steps for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 3 on record.

¶9

In view of provisions under Chapter VII, Rule 6 (2)of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960, in cases where 90 days have elapsed from the reported death of any of the parties to the appeal and no action has been taken by the Appellant to bring the heirs of the

¶10

deceased party on record the matter shall be placed before the Registrar for orders regarding the abatement of the appeal as against the deceased party as soon as possible.

¶11

As such, the prescribed time to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 3 as provided under Rules 1960 has been expired. 02 weeks time was granted, but all in vain. The matter is lying ideally without any progress due to not taken any steps. However, instead of passing order of abatement outrightly, it would be just and proper to give one opportunity to take appropriate steps for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 3, if any .

¶12

In turn, learned advocate for the appellant is directed to take appropriate steps for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 3, if any on record within two weeks. On failure, proceeding would stand abated against deceased Respondent No. 3 without further reference to the Court of Registrar.

¶13

Sd/REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

¶14

sat-R(J-II)-12.03.2025

Smt. Swati Sunil Khuspe and Ors. v. Sandip Gayandev Yadav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Swati Sunil Khuspe and Ors. v. Sandip Gayandev Yadav and 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

Jitendra Pandurang Gholap vs the State of Maharashtra

Go Digital General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Divisional Officer, Nashik vs Theba Hama Pawara and Ors.

Meena Jagdish Ramani and Ors.- As per Court order dt 11.3.2025 Applicant no.1 withdrawn vs the State of Maharashtra

Pratibha Ravindra Aparadh vs Geeta Ashok Gupta

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Ratnagiri vs Mrs. Sneha Santosh Jalgavkar and Ors.

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Ratnagiri vs Mrs. Sneha Santosh Jalgavkar and Ors.