Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Vasant Suka Kasabe & Anr vs Eknath Mahadu Kasabe (Deceased) By ... on 14 October, 2019

Author: R.D.Dhanuka

Bench: R.D.Dhanuka

ppn                                  1             12.cao-44.14.doc

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  CIVIL APPLICATION NO.44 OF 2014
                                IN
                REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.3783 OF 2014
                                IN
                   SECOND APPEAL NO.227 OF 2004

                           ALONG WITH
                REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.3783 OF 2014
                                IN
                   SECOND APPEAL NO.227 OF 2004

Vasant Suka Kasabe                           ..  Applicant/Petitioner
      Vs.
Eknath Mahadu Kasabe (since deceased)
through his legal heirs
1(a) Seetabai Eknath Kasabe & Ors.           ..  Respondents
             ---
Mr.Sachin Gite for the applicant/petitioner.
Mr.T.N. Sonawane for the respondent nos.1(b) to 1(e).
Mr.V.R. Kasle i/by Ram & Co. for the respondent no.2.
             ---
                               CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA, J.

DATE : 14th October 2019 P.C.:

. Mr.Gite, learned counsel for the applicant states that his client is not aggrived by the order passed by the Registrar (Judl.-II) on 11th August 2014, in so far abatement against the deceased respondent no.1(a) is concerned and also by the order dated 22 nd September 2014, in so far as dismissal of the civil application against the respondent no.3 is concerned. Statement is accepted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the respondents present in Court through their respective counsel. There is delay of 132 ::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2019 03:08:20 ::: ppn 2 12.cao-44.14.doc days in filing the review petition. Mr.Kasle, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 states that his client has no objection if the delay is condoned. Statement is accepted. Mr.Sonawane, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1(b) to 1(e) has vehemently opposed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the delay is not sufficiently explained. However, no affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondents. In my view, the delay is sufficiently explained in the civil application.

3. For the reasons recorded in the civil application, civil application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Delay in filing review petition is condoned. No order as to costs.

4. Place the review petition on board for 'Admission' on 11 th November 2019.

R.D.DHANUKA, J.

::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2019 03:08:20 :::