Lsp v. Aparna Ashok Patil
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Hence, the application is allowed in terms
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. We are satisfied that the delay caused deserves to be condoned. Hence, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b)&(c). K.DESHPANDE, J) (RAVI K.DESHPANDE, J) (RAVI K.DESHPANDE, J) (RAVI (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)
Judgment
Mr. Ajay S. Gadkari, Advocate for the applicant. : B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM K.DESHPANDE, JJ. RAVI K.DESHPANDE, JJ. RAVI K.DESHPANDE, JJ. RAVI 01, 2009 APRIL 01, 2009 APRIL 01, 2009 APRIL P.C. . Heard Mr. Gadkari, the learned counsel for the applicant. Despite service of notice as per the order dated 29/01/2009 none appears for the respondent.
This is an application for restoration of Family Court Appeal No. dismissed default on 9/07/2008. The application has been filed beyond time by 154 days, as per the office note.
Operative part
We are satisfied that the delay caused deserves to be condoned. Hence, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b)&(c). K.DESHPANDE, J) (RAVI K.DESHPANDE, J) (RAVI K.DESHPANDE, J) (RAVI (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)
(B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.