← Library
Bombay High CourtMCA/187/2025disposed off

Jude Patrick D Souza S O Louis Joe D Souza v. Desmond Anthony D Souza S/O Louis Joe D Souza (Since Deceased)

2025-12-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. Patil2 pages

15. MCA 187-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 187 OF 2025 Jude Patrick D'Souza S O Louis Joe D'Souza ..Applicant

Versus

ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Desmond Anthony D'Souza S/o.

..Respondent Louis Joe D Souza (since deceased) by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2025.12.09 20:14:48 +0530 Mr. Jayesh Bhatt, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr. Reyden L. Gonsalves i/b. Ms. Eventa A. Gonsalves, Advocates, for Respondent No. 3 Mr. Tejas Vora a/w. Mr. D. R. Mishra, Advocates, for Respondent No. 4CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 08.12.2025 P. C.

1.

After hearing learned Counsel for both the parties, by consent, the Miscellaneous Civil Application stands disposed of with the following directions.

O R D E R (i) The evidence in the Testamentary Suit No. 198 of 2016 pending before this Court has already been completed and the matter is pending for final hearing. Hence, all the learned Counsel agree that they would be filing their written submissions along with list of authorities within a period of eight weeks from today; (ii) They will co-operate with the learned Single Judge for early Anand

15. MCA 187-2025.doc hearing of the Testamentary Suit No. 198 of 2016 by not seeking unnecessary adjournments;

(iii) After the Testamentary Suit No. 198 of 2016 is decided, parties will also co-operate for the early hearing of the Suit No. 337 of 2015 (earlier numbered as Suit No. 997 of 2011) and also Testamentary Suit No. 94 of 2015;

(iv) Insofar as Suit No. 1287 of 2020 is concerned, on the request being made by Mr. Bhatt, on instructions of his client, ad-interim relief granted on 24.11.2025 is further extended till disposal of the three proceedings namely (a) Testamentary Suit No. 198 of 2016, (b) Suit No. 337 of 2015 and (c) Testamentary Suit No. 94 of 2015. 2.

This Court has not heard the matter on merits, hence, all the suits will be decided on their own merits.

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) Anand