← Library
Bombay High CourtCAS/1285/2013dismissed

Dundya Hari Mate (Since Decd. Thro. His L. H. ) Ramdas Dundya Mate And ORS. v. Chindu Ganpat Mate (Since Decd. Thro. His L. H. ) Dattatraya Chindhu Mate And ORS.

2015-02-23Hon'Ble Smt. Justice R.P. Sondurbaldota3 pages

* 1/3 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 409 OF 2013 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 658 OF 2007 Dundya Hari Mate (since deceased through legal heirs) .....Applicants : V/S :

Chindu Ganpat Mate (since deceased through Lrs) .....Respondents * * * * * Mr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate for the applicants. Ms. Teja Katdare, Advocate for respondents no.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. * * * * * * Coram :- Coram :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.

Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.

23rd rd February, 2015.

February, 2015.

P.C. :- P.C. :- 1).

By the order dated 18th November, 2011 the Second Appeal filed by the applicants was dismissed as the applicants had not taken out Civil Application for bringing the heirs of deceased, respondent no.2(a) on record. As per the averments made at para-5 of the application, the applicants learnt about the order of dismissal of the Second Appeal on 13th March, 2012. One year thereafter i.e. 5th March, 2013 the applicants filed the present application for restoration. The applicant was therefore required to explain the delay for two periods i.e. from 13th March, 2012 to

* 2/3 * 15th March, 2013 and 18th November, 2008 till filing of the application. At para-5, the applicant claims that the order of dismissal of the Second Appeal was communicated by the office of this Court to the lower appellate Court. The respondent learnt about the order from the lower appellate Court and started spreading the news that, he had succeeded in this Court amongst the villagers. When the news reached the applicants, they approached their Advocate for making enquiries about the appeal. The Advocate made enquiries over the telephone on 13th March, 2012 and had learnt about dismissal of the Second Appeal. The explanation offered is not only fanciful but is without necessary particulars. As such, the explanation is not satisfactory. Hence, the Civil Application is dismissed.

(SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J) (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)

* 3/3 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1285 OF 2013 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 658 OF 2007 Dundya Hari Mate (since deceased through legal heirs) .....Applicants : V/S :

Chindu Ganpat Mate (since deceased through Lrs) .....Respondents * * * * * Mr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate for the applicants. Ms. Teja Katdare, Advocate for respondents no.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. * * * * * * Coram :- Coram :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.

Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.

23rd rd February, 2015.

February, 2015.

P.C. :- P.C. :- 1).

This Civil Application is taken out for setting aside the order of abatement qua respondent no.2(a). There is delay of 7 years and 42 days in filing the application. This long delay has not been explained by the applicants. In the absence of explanation for delay, the Civil Application is dismissed.

(SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)