Lily Ambookan And ORS. v. Stanny Jerom Corriea

903 CRA 486.24.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.486 OF 2024 Mrs. Lily Ambookan & Ors.

...Applicants

Versus

Mr. Stanny Jerom Corriea

...Respondent

BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2025.04.09 20:11:15 +0530 None for Applicants.

Mr. Abhishek Ingale a/w Mr. Tejpal S. Ingale i/by C.M. Lokesh, Advocate for Respondent

CORAM:

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED :

9th April 2025 P.C.:

1.

The matter is moved at the instance of learned Counsel for the Respondent for speaking to the minutes of the Order dated 3rd April 2025. However, perusal of the Order shows that it is mentioned that the Defendant No.2 has not challenged the impugned judgment and decree and Defendant No.2 in his capacity as constituted attorney of the Applicant i.e. heirs and legal representatives of the Defendant No.1 filed the Civil Revision Application.

2.

It is pointed out today by Mr. Abhishek Ingale, learned Counsel that in fact the Defendant No.2 is also Applicant No.6 and Dusane

903 CRA 486.24.DOC he has verified the contents of the Civil Revision Application on behalf of all the Applicants. Although the dismissal of the Civil Revision Application is on the basis of the concurrent findings recorded to the effect that the Defendant No.1 has sublet the suit premises to Defendant No.2, during hearing of the Civil Revision Application a specific query was put to the learned Counsel for the Applicant that the Civil Revision Application is filed by the heirs and legal representative of the Defendant No.1 through the Defendant No.2 and not by Defendant No.2 and at that time, it was not informed to this Court by both the Advocates that the Defendant No.2 is also Applicant No.6.

3.

Accordingly, place this Civil Revision Application on 15th April 2025, first on board.

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) Dusane