Kalpana P Chaudhari Decd Thr Lhr 1A Kalika Mandar Choudhari vs Ganesh Parsharam Chaudhari and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Kalpana P Chaudhari Decd Thr Lhr 1A Kalika Mandar Choudhari vs Ganesh Parsharam Chaudhari and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both interim applications allowed, permitting the legal heirs of the deceased sole petitioner and sole respondent to be brought on record; amendment to be carried out within two weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing Interim Applications Nos. 12082/2025 and 12083/2025 (in Interim Application No. 989/2024 in Writ Petition No. 8702/2007), moved to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased sole petitioner and sole respondent, should be condoned. +1 more

Court's answer

The delay in filing the interim applications is condoned by reference to the Division Bench decision in Keshao s/o. Kawadu Maral v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (1) MahLJ 1059, which condoned a six-year delay in bringing legal heirs on record while relying on Sardar Amarjit Singh Karla v. Pramod Gupta, 2003 (3) SCC 272.

Ratio / Principle

Taking into consideration the law laid down in the cited judgments and the reasons stated in the applications, the interim applications deserve to be allowed.

Key takeaways

Interim Application No.12083/2025 stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).ratio¶¶28
Interim Application No.12082/2025 stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (d).ratio¶¶29
Amendment (to bring the legal heirs on record) is to be carried out within a period of two weeks.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Rajesh S. Patil, J., 9 April 2026 — Interim Applications Nos. 12082/2025 and 12083/2025 in Interim Application No. 989/2024 in Writ Petition No. 8702/2007 (Kalika Mandhar Chaudhari and ors v. Ganesh Parsharam Chaudhari): Allowed. The applicants sought to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased sole petitioner and the deceased sole respondent. The delay was explained thus: on the petitioner's death the then advocate had advised that the petitioner's legal heirs were already on record; and a 2008 application (Civil Application Stamp No.19627 of 2008) to bring the deceased respondent's L.R.s on record had been rejected solely because of a clerical error — the writ petition number was entered as '870 of 2007' instead of 'Writ Petition No.8702/2007' — with the result that the writ petition came to be shown as disposed of. Following the Division Bench decision in Keshao s/o. Kawadu Maral v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (1) MahLJ 1059, which condoned a six-year delay in bringing legal heirs on record relying on Sardar Amarjit Singh Karla v. Pramod Gupta, 2003 (3) SCC 272, and for the reasons stated in the applications, the delay was condoned and the applications allowed: Interim Application No.12083/2025 in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), and Interim Application No.12082/2025 in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (d); amendment to be carried out 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 19:30:03