Disposed

Moreshwar Hari Bhide Decd Thr Lhrs v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 May 2026IA/3431/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Interim Application No. 3431 of 2026 in Writ Petition No. 4139 of 2000; M.M. Sathaye, J.; decided 8th May 2026; recording of compliance of order dated 09.04.2026; legal representatives of deceased Petitioner Moreshwar Hari Bhide already brought on record by order dated 24.03.2008 allowing Civil Application No. 2642 of 2005; probate revocation procee

What did the court decide?

Compliance of the order dated 09.04.2026 (directing the Petitioners to take steps in respect of the deceased Petitioner) recorded as complied; rival contentions of both sides on the rights of the part

Moreshwar Hari Bhide Decd Thr Lhrs Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

905-IA-3431-2026 (C).doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3431 OF 2026 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4139 OF 2000

¶5

SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN

¶6

Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2026.05.08 17:12:50 +0530

¶7

Shri Moreshwar Hari Bhide (since deceased) ...Applicants through his heirs and legal representatives and Anr.

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents

¶10

¶11

Mr. K.P. Shah for the Applicant.

¶12

Ms. Kavita Solunke, Addl. GP a/w Mr. Sandip Babar, AGP for Respondent/State.

¶13

Mr. Abhishek Deshmukh for Respondent No.3.

¶14

¶15

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 8^th MAY, 2026

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶18

This application is filed by the Petitioners requesting that compliance of order dated 09.04.2026 be recorded.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the Applicant pointed out that on 09.04.2026 under a wrong impression that steps were not taken in respect of bringing legal representative of deceased Petitioner on record, it was not pointed out to the Court that the present Applicants are already brought on record. He invited the Court’s attention to order dated 24.03.2008 when Civil Application No. 2642 of 2005 was allowed thereby the Applicants were permitted to be brought on record as legal representative of the original Petitioner.

¶20

Sneha Chavan

¶21

¶22

905-IA-3431-2026 (C).doc

¶23

Perused the order dated 24.03.2008 as well as copy of Civil Application No. 2642 of 2005. Clearly on 24.03.2008, the application (for bringing legal representatives of the Petitioner on record) is allowed and the amendment is carried out.

¶24

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3, relying on Affidavit-in-Reply dated 07.05.2026 (which is tendered in the Court and taken on record) submitted that the statement made by the Advocate for the Applicant on 09.04.2026 is incorrect because the application for revocation of probate is not rejected and it is pending for consideration. He relies upon an order dated 10.03.2016 passed in MA No. 106 of 2011 in support of his submissions.

¶25

I have perused the said order dated 10.03.2016. It appears that the Misc. Application No. 172 of 2005 was converted into RCS No. 236 of 2008 and there was delay in filing application for restoration of said proceedings. The order dated 10.03.2016 condones the delay in filing the application for restoration. Perusal of the case status, annexed to the reply also indicates that the Restoration Application No. 328 of 2016 is pending for awaiting notice.

¶26

It therefore appears that proceedings for revocation of probate are pending at restoration stage and therefore, it cannot be said, in strict sense, that statement made on 09.04.2026 on behalf of Applicants, is incorrect. Be that as it may.

¶27

Since, the permission to bring legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner on record is already granted, way back on 24.03.2008, and since the rights of the parties and rival contentions on merits are already directed to be considered at the stage of final hearing of the petition, prayer made in the present application can be granted.

¶28

Accordingly, it is recorded that order dated 09.04.2026

¶29

Sneha Chavan

¶30

¶31

905-IA-3431-2026 (C).doc

¶32

directing the Petitioners to take steps in respect of deceased Petitioner, stands complied. Rival contentions of both sides on rights of the parties are kept open.

¶33

The application is disposed of in above terms.

¶34

Sneha Chavan

¶35

Moreshwar Hari Bhide Decd Thr Lhrs v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moreshwar Hari Bhide Decd Thr Lhrs v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases