Jitendrasingh Brahmadutt Singh Thaklur v. Dilip Jitendra Singh Thakur

Before : Sachin B. Bhansali Prothonotary and Senior Master Date : 18th July, 2024 FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :

14. CHOL/219/2024 IN ARBP(L)/13571/2023 ) ) ) ) ) ) Mr. Rajesh Singh, Advocate for Petitioner / Applicant Mr. Manoj Prajapati a/w. Mr. Ranjan Dwivedi, Advocate for Respondents ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) P.C. : Present e-filed Chamber Order is taken out for restoration of the captioned Petition, which was rejected vide Order dated 19.03.2024 for non-compliance of office objections under O.S. Rule 986.

Affidavit of Service showing service of present Chamber Order is already e-filed.

Perused copy of e-filed Affidavit in support of the Chamber Order. It is stated that the present Petition was listed before the Hon'ble Court on various occasions before the conditional order dated 19.03.2024 came to be passed. The office objections were not complied with on time, as Petitioner was not aware about the conditional Order dated 19.03.2024 passed by this Authority. Further, few Marathi documents were given for English translation, which were received by them on 16.04.2024 and on 17.04.2024 when they tried to upload the same in efiling portal, the same were rejected. Hence, he prayed for setting aside conditional order dated 19.03.2024.

In response, Ld. Advocate for Respondent tenders copy of e-filed Affidavit in Reply to the present .... 2

..... Continued Prothonotary and Senior Master Date : 18th July, 2024 : 2 :

Chamber Order. Perused the same; contents of which are self explanatory. It is categorically stated therein that the Petitioner has not mentioned as to when the documents were given for translation. Also, there is no sufficient ground mentioned in the Affidavit to restore the present Petition to file. Hence, the present Chamber Order may be rejected.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) It is pertinent to note here that most of the objections raised in Affidavit in Reply are touching to the merits of the captioned Petition, therefore, said objections need not to be looked into.

For the foregoing discussion and considering the grounds mentioned in Affidavit, I am of the view that although matter was rejected in view of conditional order dated 19.03.2024, the Petitioner tried to upload the translated documents on 17.04.2024. This shows Petitioner's bonafide intention to remove office objections and restore the Petition to file. Hence, present Chamber Order is granted as prayed.

The Petitioner to remove office objections on the Petition and get the same numbered and/or registered within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order, failing the Petition to stand rejected for non-removal of office objections under O.S.Rule 986.

Date : 18.07.2024 Prothonotary & Senior Master