JAWAHARLAL PEMRAJ MUTHA v. MOTILAL RITAKARAN MUTHA, DIED
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
made in the application, Civil application is allowed in terms of
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Civil Application stands disposed of. SPChauhan [ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ]
Judgment
JAWAHARLAL PEMRAJ MUTHA VERSUS MOTILAL RITAKARAN MUTHA, DIED THR. L.RS. TARABAI AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Applicant : Ms. Rashmi Kulkarni h/f. Mr. Kulkarni Sudhir D. Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. N.K. Kadake CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATED : 20 OCTOBER, 2022 PER COURT:-
Learned Advocate for the applicant prays that she may be permitted to amend the prayer clause by adding prayer of delay and prayer of abatement. Such request is granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith.
This is an application for bringing on record the legal heirs of respondent No. 5. The office report shows that proposed legal heirs of respondent No. 5-a to 5-f and 5-h is served except proposed legal heir respondent No. 5-g.
The Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in Keshao Kawadu Maral and another Versus State of Maharashtra, reported in 2005 (supp.) B.C.R. 226, condoned the delay of six 909 2 years in filing the application of bringing legal heirs on record, relying on Supreme Court judgment of Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Died) by LRs and others Versus Pramod Gupta (Smt.) Dead) by Lrs. And others, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 272.
Operative part
In view of the above judgment and the submissions made in the application, Civil application is allowed in terms of payer clause A and A-1. Abatement stands set aside.
Amendment be carried out within six weeks from today.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: made in the application, Civil application is allowed in terms of
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 20 Oct 2022. The bench was RAJESH S PATIL.
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.