Bombay High Court
Balkrushna S/O Pandurang Kamble ... vs Sau. Chandrakala W/O Manohar ... on 5 October, 2021
Bench: S. M. Modak
ca637.21.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL APPLICATION (S) No.637 OF 2021
IN
SECOND APPEAL STAMP No.10455 OF 2021
(Balkrushna s/o. Pandurang Kamble and others Vs. Sau. Chandrakala w/o. Manohar
Sahare and another)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Shri P.K. Mishra, Advocate for Applicants.
CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 5th OCTOBER, 2021.
1. There is a delay of 22 days in filing Second
Appeal.
2. The first Appellate Court decided the
appeal on 9th March, 2021, at that time Covid
restrictions were in operation and the order passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo-motu petition was
in operation.
3. Perused the reasons stated in the
application.
4. Learned Advocate Shri Deshpande,
suo motu appears for respondent No.1 and opposed
the delay.
5. The respondent No.2-Mangla is the sister
of present applicants. She contested the suit
ca637.21.odt 2/3
along with the applicants so she is a formal
respondent. There are convincing reasons given in the
application for condoning the delay of 22 days. In
view of the reasons stated in the application, the delay
of 22 days is condoned.
3. Application is disposed of.
SECOND APPEAL STAMP No.10455 OF 2021.
1. There is a partition decree passed by the
trial Court. The plaintiff was held entitled to 1/24 th
share whereas the first Appellate Court has modified it
to 1/6th share itself. It is on the basis of the Judgment
given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineet
Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and others, reported in
(2020)9 SCC.
2. It is pointed out to me that the said
observations are not applicable because the property
was acquired by the father before the birth of the
plaintiff/respondent No.1.
3. It is pointed out to me that the precept is
already sent and learned Naib Tahsildar has directed
the parties to appear before him on 27th August, 2021.
The present applicants appeared before him and
protested further action. So, till next date further
execution before Naib Tahsildar, Umred is stayed.
4. Learned Advocate for respondent No.1
wants some time to go through the papers and to
argue the matter.
ca637.21.odt 3/3
5. The copy of letter referred above and the
objections are taken on record and marked as
annexure 'X' collectively.
6. Issue notice to the respondent No.2.
7. Shri Tejas Deshpande, Learned Advocate
waives notice for respondent No.1.
8. The relief is granted in terms of prayer
clause (iii) of the appeal memo till next date.
9. Matter be kept in the week starting from
15th November, 2021.
JUDGE
Wadode
