High Court
Legal Reasoning
6 CA-6426-2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD6 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6426 OF 2022IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5370 OF 2017WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1290 OF 2024 IN CA/5370/2017WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1294 OF 2024 IN CA/5368/2017WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1292 OF 2024 IN CA/5369/2017WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1289 OF 2024 IN CA/5370/2017WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1293 OF 2024 IN CA/5368/2017WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1291 OF 2024 IN CA/5369/2017WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3322 OF 2020 IN CA/5370/2017WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3321 OF 2020 IN CA/5368/2017WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3323 OF 2020 IN CA/5369/2017WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6430 OF 2022 IN CA/5368/2017WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6436 OF 2022 IN CA/5369/2017WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12523 OF 2017 IN CA/5370/2017WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12522 OF 2017 IN CA/5368/2017WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12521 OF 2017 IN CA/5369/2017INSECOND APPEAL NO. 23 OF 1990…SHANKAR SAWALERAM PATOLE (DIED) THROUGH LRS’DINKAR AND OTHERSVERSUSDADA SAVLERAM PATOLE DIED THROUGH LRS’Pooja K.1/16
Legal Reasoning
6 CA-6426-2022RAMCHANDRA (DIED) THROUGH LRS’ SUMAN ANDOTHERS...Mr. R.R. Karpe – Advocate for ApplicantsMr. D.R. Markad h/f. Mr. N.K. Kakade and Mr. ShaikhTarekmobin H. - Advocates for respective Respondents…. CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. DATE : 2nd February, 2024PER COURT : (i)CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6426 OF 20221.Heard rival submissions.2.The applicants are seeking permission to bring all thelegal representatives of deceased respondent Nos.1G, 1G(a),1G(b), 1G(f) and 1G(g) by condoning the respective delayperiods mentioned in the application.3.Learned Counsel for some of the respondents stronglyopposed the application on the ground that, there is hugedelay and in fact there was also delay in the originalRestoration Application.4.On perusal of the application, it appears that maximumdelay appears to be of 16 years, which is not explainedPooja K.2/16 6 CA-6426-2022properly. However, considering the statutory right of theapplicants, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause‘B’ alongwith the additional prayer clauses in respect ofcondonation of delay subject to cost of Rs.8,000/- (rupeesEight Thousands only) to be paid to the respondents withintwo weeks.5.After payment of cost, the amendment be carried out.6.The application is accordingly disposed of.(ii)CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1290 OF 20241.Heard rival submissions.2.The applicants are seeking permission to bring all thelegal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 2A and 2Cby condoning the delay of 1720 days mentioned in theapplication.3.Learned Counsel for some of the respondents stronglyopposed the application on the ground that, there is hugedelay and in fact there was also delay in the originalRestoration Application.Pooja K.3/16 6 CA-6426-20224.On perusal of the application, it appears that delayappears to be of 4.7 years, which is not explained properly.However, considering the statutory right of the applicants, theapplication is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’subject to cost of Rs.2500/- (rupees Two Thousands and FiveHundreds only) to be paid to the respondents within twoweeks.5.After payment of cost, the amendment be carried out.6.The application is accordingly disposed of.(iii)CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3322 OF 20201.Heard rival submissions.2.The applicants are seeking permission to bring all thelegal representatives of deceased respondent No.1G(e) bycondoning the delay of 218 days mentioned in the application.Learned Counsel for some of the respondents stronglyopposed the application on the ground that, there is hugedelay and in fact there was also delay in the originalRestoration Application. Pooja K.4/16
Decision
6 CA-6426-20223.On perusal of the application, it appears that the delayis not explained properly. However, considering the statutoryright of the applicants, the application is allowed in terms ofprayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’ subject to cost of Rs.500/- (rupeesFive Hundreds only) to be paid to the respondents within twoweeks.4.After payment of cost, the amendment be carried out.5.The application is accordingly disposed of.(iv)CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1289 OF 20241.Heard rival submissions.2.The application is for bringing legal representatives ofdeceased appellant No.3 – Danial Shankar Patole, whoadmittedly died on 22.11.2023, as mentioned in the titleclause. The application is within time and therefore it standsallowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.3.The application is accordingly disposed of.4.Amendment be carried out within stipulated period.Pooja K.5/16 6 CA-6426-2022 (v)CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12523 OF 20171.Heard rival submissions.2.The applicants are seeking permission to bring all thelegal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 1C(ii), 1G(g),1G(h), 3a, 3c and 5a by condoning the respective delay periodsmentioned in the application.3.Learned Counsel for some of the respondents stronglyopposed the application on the ground that, there is hugedelay and in fact there was also delay in the originalRestoration Application.4.On perusal of the application, it appears that maximumdelay appears to be of 6.7 years, which is not explainedproperly. However, considering the statutory right of theapplicants, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause‘B’ alongwith the additional prayer clauses in respect ofcondonation of delay subject to cost of Rs.3,500/- (rupeesThree Thousands and Five Hundreds only) to be paid to therespondents within two weeks.Pooja K.6/16 6 CA-6426-20225.After payment of cost, the amendment be carried out.6.The application is accordingly disposed of.(vi)CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1291 OF 20241.Heard rival submissions.2.The application is for bringing legal representatives ofdeceased appellant No.3 – Danial Shankar Patole, whoadmittedly died on 22.11.2023, as mentioned in the titleclause. The application is within time and therefore it standsallowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.3.The application is accordingly disposed of.4.Amendment be carried out within stipulated period.(vii)CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1292 OF 2024 1.Heard rival submissions.2.The applicants are seeking permission to bring all thelegal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 2A and 2Cby condoning the delay of 1720 days mentioned in theapplication. Pooja K.7/16 6 CA-6426-20223.Learned Counsel for some of the respondents stronglyopposed the application on the ground that, there is hugedelay and in fact there was also delay in the originalRestoration Application.4.On perusal of the application, it appears that delayappears to be of 4.7 years, which is not explained properly.However, considering the statutory right of the applicants, theapplication is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’subject to cost of Rs.2500/- (rupees Two Thousands and FiveHundreds only) to be paid to the respondents within twoweeks.5.After payment of cost, the amendment be carried out.6.The application is accordingly disposed of.(viii)CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3323 OF 20201.Heard rival submissions.2.The applicants are seeking permission to bring all thelegal representatives of deceased respondent No.1G(e) bycondoning the delay of 218 days mentioned in the application.Pooja K.8/16 6 CA-6426-20223.Learned Counsel for some of the respondents stronglyopposed the application on the ground that, there is hugedelay and in fact there was also delay in the originalRestoration Application.4.On perusal of the application, it appears that the delayis not explained properly. However, considering the statutoryright of the applicants, the application is allowed in terms ofprayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’ subject to cost of Rs.500/- (rupeesFive Hundreds only) to be paid to the respondents within twoweeks.5.After payment of cost, the amendment be carried out.6.The application is accordingly disposed of.(ix)CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6436 OF 20221.Heard rival submissions.2.The applicants are seeking permission to bring all thelegal representatives of deceased respondent Nos.1G, 1G(a),1G(b), 1G(f) and 1G(g) by condoning the respective delayperiods mentioned in the application.Pooja K.9/16 6 CA-6426-20223.Learned Counsel for some of the respondents stronglyopposed the application on the ground that, there is hugedelay and in fact there was also delay in the originalRestoration Application.4.On perusal of the application, it appears that maximumdelay appears to be of 17.6 years, which is not explainedproperly. However, considering the statutory right of theapplicants, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause‘B’ alongwith the additional prayer clauses in respect ofcondonation of delay subject to cost of Rs.9,000/- (rupeesNine Thousands only) to be paid to the respondents withintwo weeks.5.After payment of cost, the amendment be carried out.6.The application is accordingly disposed of.(x)CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12521 OF 20171.Heard rival submissions.2.The applicants are seeking permission to bring all thelegal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 1C(ii), 1G(g),Pooja K.10/16 6 CA-6426-20221G(h), 3a, 3c and 5a by condoning the respective delay periodsmentioned in the application.3.Learned Counsel for some of the respondents stronglyopposed the application on the ground that, there is hugedelay and in fact there was also delay in the originalRestoration Application.4.On perusal of the application, it appears that maximumdelay appears to be of 6.4 years, which is not explainedproperly. However, considering the statutory right of theapplicants, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause‘B’ alongwith the additional prayer clauses in respect ofcondonation of delay subject to cost of Rs.3,500/- (rupeesThree Thousands and Five Hundreds only) to be paid to therespondents within two weeks.5.After payment of cost, the amendment be carried out.6.The application is accordingly disposed of.Pooja K.11/16 6 CA-6426-2022(xi)CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12522 OF 20171.Heard rival submissions.2.The applicants are seeking permission to bring all thelegal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 1C(ii), 1G(f),1G(g), 1G(h), 3a, 3c and 5a by condoning the respective delayperiods mentioned in the application.3.Learned Counsel for some of the respondents stronglyopposed the application on the ground that, there is hugedelay and in fact there was also delay in the originalRestoration Application.4.On perusal of the application, it appears that maximumdelay appears to be of 6.4 years, which is not explainedproperly. However, considering the statutory right of theapplicants, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause‘B’ alongwith the additional prayer clauses in respect ofcondonation of delay subject to cost of Rs.3,500/- (rupeesThree Thousands and Five Hundreds only) to be paid to therespondents within two weeks.Pooja K.12/16 6 CA-6426-20225.After payment of cost, the amendment be carried out.6.The application is accordingly disposed of.(xii)CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6430 OF 20221.Heard rival submissions.2.The applicants are seeking permission to bring all thelegal representatives of deceased respondent Nos.1G, 1G(a),1G(b), 1G(f) and 1G(g) by condoning the respective delayperiods mentioned in the application.3.Learned Counsel for some of the respondents stronglyopposed the application on the ground that, there is hugedelay and in fact there was also delay in the originalRestoration Application.4.On perusal of the application, it appears that maximumdelay appears to be of 16.8 years, which is not explainedproperly. However, considering the statutory right of theapplicants, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause‘B’ alongwith the additional prayer clauses in respect ofcondonation of delay subject to cost of Rs.8,500/- (rupeesPooja K.13/16 6 CA-6426-2022Eight Thousands and Five Hundreds only) to be paid to therespondents within two weeks.5.After payment of cost, the amendment be carried out.6.The application is accordingly disposed of.(xiii)CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3321 OF 20201.Heard rival submissions.2.The applicants are seeking permission to bring all thelegal representatives of deceased respondent No.1G(e) bycondoning the delay of 218 days mentioned in the application.3.Learned Counsel for some of the respondents stronglyopposed the application on the ground that, there is hugedelay and in fact there was also delay in the originalRestoration Application.4.On perusal of the application, it appears that the delayis not explained properly. However, considering the statutoryright of the applicants, the application is allowed in terms ofprayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’ subject to cost of Rs.500/- (rupeesPooja K.14/16 6 CA-6426-2022Five Hundreds only) to be paid to the respondents within twoweeks.5.After payment of cost, the amendment be carried out.6.The application is accordingly disposed of.(xiv)CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1293 OF 20241.Heard rival submissions.2.The application is for bringing legal representatives ofdeceased appellant No.3 – Danial Shankar Patole, whoadmittedly died on 22.11.2023, as mentioned in the titleclause. The application is within time and therefore it standsallowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.3.The application is accordingly disposed of.4.Amendment be carried out within stipulated period.(xv)CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1294 OF 20241.Heard rival submissions.2.The applicants are seeking permission to bring all thePooja K.15/16 6 CA-6426-2022legal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 2A and 2Cby condoning the delay of 1720 days mentioned in theapplication.3.Learned Counsel for some of the respondents stronglyopposed the application on the ground that, there is hugedelay and in fact there was also delay in the originalRestoration Application.4.On perusal of the application, it appears that delayappears to be of 4.7 years, which is not explained properly.However, considering the statutory right of the applicants, theapplication is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’subject to cost of Rs.2500/- (rupees Two Thousands and FiveHundreds only) to be paid to the respondents within twoweeks.5.After payment of cost, the amendment be carried out.6.The application is accordingly disposed of. [ SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE ] JUDGEPooja K.16/16