Kalpana P Chaudhari Decdthr Lhr 1A Kalika Mandhar Chaudhari and Ors. vs Ganesh Parsharam Chaudhari and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Kalpana P Chaudhari Decdthr Lhr 1A Kalika Mandhar Chaudhari and Ors. vs Ganesh Parsharam Chaudhari and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Legal heirs of the deceased sole petitioner and the deceased sole respondent brought on record: IA No.12083/2025 allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b); IA No.12082/2025 allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (d); amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Interim Applications Nos.12082/2025 and 12083/2025, filed to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased sole petitioner and the deceased sole respondent notwithstanding the delay in their filing, should be allowed.

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the law laid down in Keshao s/o. Kawadu Maral v. State of Maharashtra (2005 (1) MahLJ 1059), which relied on Sardar Amarjit Singh Karla (dead) by LRs v. Pramod Gupta (Smt.) (dead) by LRs (2003 (3) SCC 272), and for the reasons stated in the applications, the Interim Applications deserve to be allowed notwithstanding the delay.

Ratio / Principle

Interim Application No.12083/2025 stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

Key takeaways

Interim Application No.12082/2025 stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (d).ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Rajesh S. Patil, J.), Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, 9 April 2026 — Interim Applications Nos.12082/2025 and 12083/2025 in IA No.989/2024 in Writ Petition No.8702/2007 (Kalika Mandhar Chaudhari and others v. Ganesh Parsharam Chaudhari): ALLOWED, enabling substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased sole petitioner and the deceased sole respondent. The delay in filing was excused by reference to the Division Bench precedent Keshao s/o Kawadu Maral v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (1) MahLJ 1059, which itself relied on Sardar Amarjit Singh Karla (dead) by LRs v. Pramod Gupta (Smt.) (dead) by LRs, 2003 (3) SCC 272. The Court noted that an earlier 2008 attempt (Civil Application Stamp No.19627 of 2008) to bring the respondent's L.R.s on record had been rejected solely because the writ petition number was misstated as '870 of 2007' instead of 8702/2007, after which the writ petition stood shown as disposed of. IA No.12083/2025 was allowed per prayer clauses (a) and (b); IA No.12082/2025 per clauses (a) and (d); amendment ordered within two weeks.

26:BHC-AS:2

Diksha Rane 58 IA 989 2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

58 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 989/2024 IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 8702/2007

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.12082/2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.12083/2025 IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 989/2024

KALIKA MANDHAR CHAUDHARI AND ORS ..APPLICANTS

VS GANESH PARSHARAM CHAUDHARI ..RESPONDENT

Adv. R. C. Mishra for petitioners. Adv. Vinod P. Sangvikar for respondent no.1.

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE : 9 APRIL 2026.

P.C. :

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.12082/2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.12083/2025 IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 989/2024

1) These applications have been filed by the applicant seeking to bring on record the legal heirs, of the sole petitioner and the sole respondent.

2) There is a delay in filing the present applications. The grounds

mentioned for the delay is that, the earlier advocate was informed

1

Diksha Rane 58 IA 989 2024.doc

about the death of the petitioner, however, the then advocate advised that the legal heirs of the petitioner are already on record and if any change is required that can be done at the time of the hearing of the matter.

2.1) In the year 2008, even sole respondent had died. The then advocate had preferred an application being Civil Application Stamp No.19627 of 2008 to bring on record L.R.’s. However, the earlier advocate due to oversight mentioned in the civil application the writ petition number as 870 of 2007, instead of Writ Petition No.8702/2007. Hence, due to addition of numerical ‘2’ to the writ petition number, the civil application for bringing the legal heirs on record of the respondent was rejected and hence, even the writ petition was shown as disposed of.

3) I have heard learned counsel for both sides and I have gone through the contents of the applications.

4) The Division Bench of this Court in Keshao s/o. Kawadu Maral

and another Versus State of Maharashtra and others , reported in 2005 (1) MahLJ 1059 , condoned the delay of six years in filing the Application of bringing the legals heirs on record, relying on the Supreme Court judgment of Sardar Amarjit Singh Karla (dead) by

2

Diksha Rane 58 IA 989 2024.doc

LRS. and others Versus Pramod Gupta (Smt.) (dead) by LRS. and others, reported in 2003 (3) SCC 272 .

5) Taking into consideration the law laid down in the above judgment and for the reasons stated in the applications, these Interim Applications deserve to be allowed.

6) Interim Application No.12083/2025 stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) .

7) Interim Application No.12082/2025 stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (d) .

8) Amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today.

(Rajesh S. Patil, J.)

3

Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 15/04/2026 19:29:05