Dattatraya Sadashivkarandikar (Dead)Thr.Lrs.1a)Mr.Shreeram Dattatraya Karandikar And ANR. v. Shekhar S Karandikar (Dead)Thr.Lrs.1a)Smt.Meeta Shekhar Karandikar And ORS.

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD NAJEEB MOHAMMAD QAYYUM Date:

2022.03.31 16:07:03 +0530 MOHAMMAD NAJEEB MOHAMMAD QAYYUM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Interim Application No. 902 / 2022 in First Appeal No. 58 / 2004 Mrs. Savita Dattatray Karandikar Since Deceased Bharati Dattatray Karandikar and Anr. ... Applicants

Versus

Shekhar Sadashiv Karandikar (Deceased Thr.

LRS.) Meeta S. Karandikar and Ors.

... Respondents Alongwith Civil Application (CAF) No. 1219 / 2019 in First Appeal No. 58 / 2004 Dattatraya Sadashivkarandikar (Dead) Thr. LRS. 1.A) Mr. Shreeram Dattatraya Karandikar and Anr. ... Applicants

Versus

Shekhar Sadashiv Karandikar (Deceased Thr.

LRS.) Meeta S. Karandikar and Ors.

... Respondents **** Ms. Kalyani Bane i/by M/s Divekar & Co., Advocate for Applicants in IA & CAF.

Mr. Uday G. Jaguste, Advocate for Respondent No.1a to 1c in both applications.

**** CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.

DATE : 30 th MARCH, 2022.

1/3

P.C.

1.

In view of the self operative order dated 20 th February, 2017, First Appeal was dismissed. In November, 2017, Civil Application No. 1219/2019 was moved seeking restoration of appeal by condoning delay. Pending application, the Appellant No.2 passed away on 27 th October, 2020. Thus, Interim Application No. 902/2022 (I.A. No.1838/2021) was moved to bring the legal representatives of deceased-Appellant No.2, on record.

2.

Heard. Learned Counsel for the parties in both the applications. 3.

Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents opposed the Civil Application No. 1219/2019. They have filed affidavit in reply, contending that, no sufficient cause, has been shown for condoning the delay.

4.

In consideration of the nature of lis, wherefrom the First Appeal arose, it is apparent, the dispute is amongst the family members. Having regard to the facts of the case and in view of the reasons 2/3

stated in the application, I am inclined to condone the delay, subject to costs Rs. 5000/-, which the Appellant shall deposit with the High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today. Subject to depositing the costs and filing of paper book within four weeks, the Application No. 1219 is allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause A and B.

5.

Insofar as Interim Application No. 902/2022 is concerned; in view of the reasons cited in the application, since right sue survives, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'a'. Consequential amendments to be carried out within four weeks from today. The Appellant shall serve the amended copy of the appeal memo on Counsel for the Respondent, soon after amendments are carried out.

6.

Both the applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) 3/3