Sumitra Sharad Vetoskar And ORS. v. Vimalchand Chandrakant Bhurke And ORS.
JAYARAJAN ANJAKULATH NAIR Date: 2022.04.27 18:31:12 +0530 JAYARAJAN ANJAKULATH NAIR 1/3 07 IA-1405.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1405 OF 2019 IN SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO.27077 OF 2019 ALONG WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.1651 OF 2022 [Not on board. Taken up on board on mentioning.] Sumitra Sharad Vetoskar & Ors.
] ... Applicants Vs.
Vimalchand Chandrakant Bhurke & Ors.
] ] ... Respondents ...
Mr. Aditya P. Kharkar h/f. Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar for the applicants.
...
CORAM
: SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 26TH APRIL, 2022.
P.C. :- 1.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the application, which seeks condonation of delay of 81 days in instituting the appeal.
2/3 07 IA-1405.19.odt 2.
On perusal of the application, it can be seen that after obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment, legal opinion was sought and the applicant being the senior citizens and particularly they all are women, they took necessary steps only after effecting consultation with their counsel and this has caused the delay.
3.
Being satisfied that the delay is bona fide, it deserves to be condoned. The interim application is made absolute. The appeal is directed to be registered.
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.1651 OF 2022 [Not on board. Taken up on board on mentioning.] 4.
By the present application, the memo of second appeal is sought to be amended by deleting the name of respondent No.4, who has expired on 29/11/2016. His legal heir being respondent No.5 is already on record and, therefore, the amendment is proposed in the memo of appeal.
5.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the application.
6.
In the wake of the event of death of respondent No.4, his deletion is sought, which deserves to be granted by allowing the
3/3 07 IA-1405.19.odt application in terms of prayer clause (a). Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith.
7.
At this stage, learned counsel states that inadvertently in the memo of appeal, the name of respondent No.4 is not reflected and, an office objection to that effect, has been raised. The learned counsel states that he shall insert the name of respondent No.4 in the memo of appeal, just to be deleted. As far as the interim application is concerned, since the name of respondent No.4 is already shown therein, his name is permitted to be deleted from the application, in the wake of presence of his legal heir on record. 8.
List the appeal for admission after summer vacation. [SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.]