Madhuri D/O. Baburao Chandekar and Another v. Purna Baburao @ Motilal Chandekar and Others

Bombay HC20 Mar 2025WP/5258/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Succession certificate; Section 2 Bombay Regulation Act 1825; M.J.C. No.584/2021 Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Chandrapur; objection dismissed in default 13.01.2023; review application 03.02.2023 rejected 25.07.2024; counsel failure to appear and communicate; legal heirs' rights to be decided; natural justice; quashing and setting aside; conditional relief with Rs.3,000/- costs; Writ Petition No. 5258 of 2024; Nagpur Bench; decision 20 March 2025.

What did the court decide?

Both impugned orders dated 13.01.2023 and 25.07.2024 in M.J.C. No.584/2021 quashed and set aside; petitioners to appear before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandrapur on the next date and pay Rs.3,000/- costs to the applicant within two weeks; no order as to costs on the writ petition. ¶¶24

Madhuri D/O. Baburao Chandekar and Another Vs Purna Baburao @ Motilal Chandekar and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 13.01.2023 (objection application dismissed in default) and 25.07.2024 (review application rejected) passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandrapur in M.J.C. No.584/2021 are liable to be quashed and set aside. +1 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

Although ample opportunity had been granted and the petitioners and their Counsel were absent, the petitioner duly explained her absence as her Counsel took no care to intimate her about the status of her objection nor about its rejection as not argued; hence, in the interest of justice, the order dated 13.01.2023 and the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandrapur in M.J.C. No.584/2021 are quashed and set aside.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

In the Court's considered opinion, the petitioners' objection may not be thrown at the threshold, because in an application for succession certificate the legal heirs' rights in the property are to be decided.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

The petitioners are directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandrapur on the next date where the matter is pending, and, for the inconvenience caused to the other side, are liable to pay costs of Rs.3,000/- to the applicant within a period of two weeks.ratio¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, J.), Writ Petition No. 5258 of 2024, decided 20.03.2025: Where an objection filed by legal heirs in a succession certificate application (M.J.C. No.584/2021 under Section 2 of the Bombay Regulation Act, 1825) stood dismissed in default by order dated 13.01.2023, and the review thereof was rejected by order dated 25.07.2024, both because the objectors' counsel neither appeared nor communicated the status of the matter to the objectors, the High Court held that the objection ought not be thrown out at the threshold since legal heirs' rights in the property fall to be decided in such an application. In the interest of justice, both orders were quashed and set aside; the petitioners were directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandrapur on the next date and to pay Rs.3,000/- as costs to the applicant within two weeks towards the inconvenience caused. Writ petition disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:3008

¶2

Judgment

¶3

1 J-WP No.5258.2024.odt

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 5258 OF 2024

¶6

1)	Madhuri D/o Baburao Chandekar, Aged about 32 years, Occ.-Nil,
2)	Maya Baburao Chandekar, Aged about 45 years, Occ.-Nil,
	Both R/o. Near Carmel Academy School, near S. T. Workshop, Tukum, Tah. and Dist. Chandrapur. ….PETITIONERS
	//VERSUS //
1)	Smt. Purna Baburao @ Motilal Chandekar, Aged about 66 years, Occ.-Household, R/o. Plot No.16, banker layout, near Chokhameda Girls Hostel, Naginabag, Tah. and Dist. Chandrapur.
2)	Vikrant Baburao @ Motilal Chandekar, Aged about 42 years, Occ.-Household, R/o. Plot No.16, banker layout, near Chokhameda Girls Hostel, Naginabag, Tah. and Dist. Chandrapur.
3)	Darshan Baburao @ Motilal Chandekar, Aged about 66 years, Occ.-Service, R/o. 307 Kutub Green apartment, Ward No.7, Mehrauli Gadaipaur, South West Delhi, Dist. Delhi – 110030. ….RESPONDENTS
_	_ Mr. N. A. Chawhan, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. Syed Salman Ali, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
	CORAM :SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J. DATE :20 th MARCH, 2025.

¶7

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶8

Judgment

¶9

2 J-WP No.5258.2024.odt

¶10

Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶11

Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶12

The challenge in this petition is the order dated 13.01.2023 and 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandrapur in M.J.C. No.584/2021.

¶13

It is contention of the petitioners that there is an application under Section 2 of the Bombay Regulation Act, 1825 for issuance of Succession Certificate filed by Smt. Purna Baburao @ Motilal Chandekar bearing M.J.C. No.584/2021. In the said application, in view of publication of notice, present petitioners filed an application for grant of permission to file objection. Their learned Counsel assured to them that the objection will be decided after hearing. As there were no proper response from the earlier Counsel, the petitioners requested another Counsel for only verifying the status of their objection application. It was informed that their objection application was dismissed in default by order dated 13.01.2023. They were also informed that a review application dated 03.02.2023 filed by their earlier Counsel is pending. In view of this facts, the petitioners engaged another Counsel to prosecute the matter in the month of July2024. The review application was also rejected by the learned Trial

¶14

Judgment

¶15

3 J-WP No.5258.2024.odt

¶16

Court vide order dated 25.07.2024. The said order is under challenge as the Counsel failed to appear in the said application also and impugned order came to be passed.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that there is an order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandrapur on 10.07.2023, by which last chance was granted to argue the application for review. In fact, the application for review is filed under the signature of Counsel, which supports the contention of the petitioners that they were not informed about the status of their objection. In fact, earlier Counsel ought not to have filed application for review but ought to have filed for recalling the order as the contents in the review application are in respect of recalling the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandrapur. If the petitioners would have been intimated about the order passed by the Trial Court on 13.01.2023, the petitioners could have filed an affidavit giving reasons why the petitioners and their Counsel are not present on the date when the matter is called out. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners never intimated the status of the objections raised by the present petitioners.

¶18

In my considered opinion, the petitioners’ objection may

¶19

not be thrown at the threshold as in application for succession certificate the legal heirs’ rights in the property are to be decided. It

¶20

Judgment

¶21

4 J-WP No.5258.2024.odt

¶22

appears that there is an ample opportunity is granted to the petitioners, however, the petitioners as well as their Counsel were absent. The reason for absence of petitioner, she has duly explained as her Counsel has not taken any care to intimate her about status of her objection nor informed about rejection of objection as not argued. In view of that, in the interest of justice, the order dated 13.01.2023 and 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandrapur in M.J.C. No.584/2021 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶23

The petitioners to appear before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandrapur where the matter is pending on the next date. However, for the inconvenience caused to the other side, needs to be compensated. The petitioners is liable to pay costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousand only) to the applicant within a period of two weeks.

¶24

The writ petition stand disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.

¶25

Kirtak

Madhuri D/O. Baburao Chandekar and Another v. Purna Baburao @ Motilal Chandekar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhuri D/O. Baburao Chandekar and Another v. Purna Baburao @ Motilal Chandekar and Others

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

Similar cases

Raju Shamrao Dhabre and Others vs Pramila Wd/O Vandeo Dhabre and Others

Zilla Parishad Washim Thr. Chief Executive Officer and Another vs Controlling Authority and Judge, Labour Court Akola and Another

The Bhandara Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Thr. Chief Executive Officer, Bhandara vs Talikram S/O Kawaduji Mandurkar

National Highways Authority of India, Thr Project Director, Implementation Unit, Amravati Vs Hasinabi Hussainshah Lrs. of Hussainshah fakir and others

Dilip Marotrao Ghurde vs the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tiwsa-Bhatkuli, Amravati and Others

Shiraz S/O. Khurshedji Doongaji and Another vs Jehangir S/O. Khurshedji Doongaji