Rukhminibai Wd/O Mansram Lodh and Others vs Sunanda Wd/O Trambak Chincholkar and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rukhminibai Wd/O Mansram Lodh and Others vs Sunanda Wd/O Trambak Chincholkar and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of delay of around two months, setting aside of abatement and bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased appellant No.4 in both sets of civil applications (in Second Appeals Nos.365 and 366 of 2017); necessary amendment to be carried out on or before 30.01.2026; permission granted to delete deceased appellant No.1 from the array of parties in both appeals; appeals listed on 05.02.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of around two months in filing the application for bringing the legal representative of deceased appellant No.4 on record in Civil Application Nos.897, 898, 899 and 900 of 2025 in Second Appeal No.365 of 2017 should be condoned and the abatement set aside. +4 more

Court's answer

In Civil Application Nos.897, 898, 899 and 900 of 2025 in Second Appeal No.365 of 2017, the application for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and bringing the legal representatives of deceased appellant No.4 on record is allowed, and necessary amendment is to be carried out on or before 30.01.2026.

Ratio / Principle

In Second Appeal No.365 of 2017, permission is granted to delete the deceased appellant No.1 from the array of the parties, her legal representatives already being on record.

Key takeaways

In Civil Application (CAS) Nos.893, 894, 895 and 896 of 2025 in Second Appeal No.366 of 2017, the application for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and bringing the legal representatives of deceased appellant No.4 on record is allowed, and necessary amendment is to be carried out on or before 30.01.2026.ratio¶19
In Second Appeal No.366 of 2017, permission is granted to delete the deceased appellant No.1 from the array of the parties, her legal representatives already being on record.ratio¶20
In view of the parties' statement of amicable settlement, the appeals were directed to be listed on 05.02.2026.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Rohit W. Joshi, J.; order dated 23/01/2026) allowed Civil Application Nos.897, 898, 899 and 900 of 2025 in Second Appeal No.365 of 2017 and Civil Application (CAS) Nos.893, 894, 895 and 896 of 2025 in Second Appeal No.366 of 2017. The delay of around two months in filing the applications for bringing the legal representative of deceased appellant No.4 on record was condoned, the abatement was set aside and the legal representatives were brought on record, with necessary amendment directed to be carried out on or before 30.01.2026. Permission was granted to delete deceased appellant No.1 from the array of parties in both appeals, her legal representatives already being on record. The respective parties stated that the matter was amicably settled, and the appeals were listed on 05.02.2026. Neutral citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:1189.

2026:BHC-NAG:1189

2.sa.365.2017.odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

CIVIL APPLICATION NOS.897, 898, 899 AND 900 OF 2025

IN

SECOND APPEAL NO.365 OF 2017

Rukhminibai Wd/o Mansaram Lodh and others

.Vs.

Sunanda Wd/o Trambak Chincholkar (Dead) and others

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

Mr. A.R. Deshpande, Advocate for applicants/applicants. Mr. P.S. Gawai, Advocate for non-applicant Nos.2 and 6.

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 23/01/2026

There is a delay of around two months in filing application for bringing legal representative of deceased appellant No.4 on record. For the reasons mentioned in the application, application for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and bringing legal representatives of deceased appellant No.4 are allowed . Necessary amendment be carried out on or before 30.01.2026 .

The learned Advocate for the appellants states that the appellant No.1 has expired and that her legal representatives are already on record. In view of the above, permission is granted to delete the deceased appellant No.1 from the array of the parties.

2.sa.365.2017.odt

2

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NOS.893, 894, 895 AND 896 OF 2025 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.366 OF 2017

There is a delay of around two months in filing application for bringing legal representative of deceased appellant No.4 on record. For the reasons mentioned in the application, application for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and bringing legal representatives of deceased appellant No.4 are allowed . Necessary amendment be carried out on or before 30.01.2026 .

The learned Advocate for the appellants states that the appellant No.1 has expired and that her legal representatives are already on record. In view of the above, permission is granted to delete the deceased appellant No.1 from the array of the parties.

Respective parties state that the matter is amicably settled. List the appeals on 05.02.2026 .

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

C.L. Dhakate

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the delay of around two months in filing the application for bringing the legal representative of deceased appellant No.4 on record in Civil Application Nos.897, 898, 899 and 900 of 2025 in Second Appeal No.365 of 2017 should be condoned and the abatement set aside.¶14
The court held
In Civil Application Nos.897, 898, 899 and 900 of 2025 in Second Appeal No.365 of 2017, the application for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and bringing the legal representatives of deceased appellant No.4 on record is allowed, and necessary amendment is to be carried out on or before 30.01.2026.ratio¶14
2.
Whether the deceased appellant No.1 in Second Appeal No.365 of 2017 should be deleted from the array of parties, her legal representatives already being on record.¶15
The court held
In Second Appeal No.365 of 2017, permission is granted to delete the deceased appellant No.1 from the array of the parties, her legal representatives already being on record.ratio¶15
3.
Whether the delay in filing the application for bringing the legal representative of deceased appellant No.4 on record in Civil Application (CAS) Nos.893, 894, 895 and 896 of 2025 in Second Appeal No.366 of 2017 should be condoned and the abatement set aside.¶19
The court held
In Civil Application (CAS) Nos.893, 894, 895 and 896 of 2025 in Second Appeal No.366 of 2017, the application for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and bringing the legal representatives of deceased appellant No.4 on record is allowed, and necessary amendment is to be carried out on or before 30.01.2026.ratio¶19
4.
Whether the deceased appellant No.1 in Second Appeal No.366 of 2017 should be deleted from the array of parties, her legal representatives already being on record.¶20
The court held
In Second Appeal No.366 of 2017, permission is granted to delete the deceased appellant No.1 from the array of the parties, her legal representatives already being on record.ratio¶20
5.
What further directions should issue in the appeals in view of the parties' statement that the matter is amicably settled.medium confidence¶21
The court held
In view of the parties' statement of amicable settlement, the appeals were directed to be listed on 05.02.2026.ratio¶21