Judgment · High Court · 2009
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. For the reasons stated in the Civil Application, the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (c) on the appellant paying costs quantified at Rs.3,000/- each to respondents no.2 and 3 in one set and respondents no.1A to 1E in another…
Judgment
[Sarjerao Maruti Sathe V/s.Shri. Arjun M.Sathe & Ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, apperances, Court’s order or directions and Registrar orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr.S.S.Patwardhan, adv.for applicant. Mr.P.J.Pawar, adv.for respondents no. 2 and 3. Mr.U.B.Nighot, adv.for respondents no.1A to 1E CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDO TA, J. DATED: 30TH JUNE, 2009. P.C. :
#1. This application is for restoration of the Second Appeal which was dismissed for default on 12th June, 2009 and restoration of Civil Application No.41 of 2005 by condoning the delay. The application is opposed by the respondents.
#2. Heard counsel for both sides.
#3. For the reasons stated in the Civil Application, the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (c) on the appellant paying costs quantified at Rs.3,000/- each to respondents no.2 and 3 in one set and respondents no.1A to 1E in another set. [JUDGE]
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.