Shri Siddharam G. Patil & Ors. v. Shri Appasaheb G. Patil & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- B H MARLAPALLE
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H.
Judgment
Shri Siddharam G. Patil & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Shri Appasaheb G. Patil & ors. .. Respondents Mr. Pankaj Das for petitioners. Mr. Sachin Dhakephalkar for respondent nos.1 and 2. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: : June 27, 2006. DateDateDate : June 27, 2006. : June 27, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.:
Heard Mr. Das the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Dhakephalkar the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2.
In Regular Civil Suit No.1341 of 1999 an application Exh.65 praying recall no W.S. allowing the W.S. record. The application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 28/9/2005.
The learned Judge of the trial court noted receipt notice :2: defendants appeared 4/3/2005 failed W.S. i.e. almost more application submitted Exh.65 reason defendants advocate. Under circumstances referred decision Kailash vs. Nanhku (AIR 2005 SC 2441) defendants failed exceptional reasons beyond control defendants, a result W.S. time, rather presenting 4/3/2005. The rejection application, therefore, circumstances cannot termed perverse grossly erroneous call for interference in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H.
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.