← Library
Bombay High CourtMCA/1133/2018admittedallwdgrantedrule absolute

Mr. Pramod S/O Kawdoo Gedam v. Mrs. Seema Promod Gedam

2018-10-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

cao1806.18 and mca st.21382.18 34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CAO NO.1806/2018 AND MCA ST. NO.21382/2018 IN FCA ST. NO.6900/2018 Mr. Pramod s/o Kawdoo Gedam ..vs..

Mrs. Seema Pramod Gedam ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Ms Prachi Joshi, Counsel for the applicant.

CORAM

: V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED : OCTOBER 8, 2018.

1.

Heard learned counsel Ms Prachi Joshi for the applicant.

2.

The applicant/husband being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 17.2.2018 passed by learned Judge, Family Court No.4, Nagpur in Petition No.A-428/2013, filed an appeal before this Court. The said appeal was on stamp. However, there were certain office objections. 3.

Learned counsel for the applicant could not remove the office objections within the stipulated period. Therefore, the stamp was refused. Since the stamp was refused, the applicant filed an application for restoration of the first appeal stamp. There was delay in moving the application for restoration. Therefore, an application for condonation of delay is filed. Delay is of 36 days.

4.

Notices on these two applications need not be sent to the non-applicants since the appeal itself was dismissed .....2/-

cao1806.18 and mca st.21382.18 34 even prior to issuance of the Notices.

5.

Learned counsel Ms Prachi Joshi for the applicant filed an affidavit and stated that due to her mistake office objections could not be removed.

6.

For the fault on the part of Advocate, the litigant should not suffer.

7.

Hence, for the reasons stated in the applications, the applications are allowed. Delay is hereby condoned. The first appeal stamp is restored to file.

8.

The applicant to remove the office objections within a period of two weeks from today.

9.

Both applications are allowed and disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE !! BRW !!

...../-