Bombay High Court
Shri. Mahesh S. Kadrekar vs Mr. Kersi Ardeshir Rabadi And Ors. ... on 12 October, 2021
Bench: Bharati Dangre
sat 6. ca 993-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 993 OF 2016
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 258 OF 2014
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2000
Shri Mahsh S. Kadrekar ...Applicant
In the matter between
1. Shri S.M. Kadrekar, since deceased
through legal heirs
1(a) Sushma Shivram Kadrekar & Ors. ...Appellants
vs.
Kersi Ardeshir Rabadi & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Yogeh P. Morbale i/b. Pillai & Co. for Applicant.
Mr.Aditya Sashittal for Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(c).
Mr.Y.Y. Dabake, AGP for State.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 12 OCTOBER 2021
P.C. :
1. The application taken out in the year 2016 is pending before
this court and today when the parties appeared before the court, they state
that the dispute between the parties, which has emerged in the form First
Appeal No.78/2000 stands settled amongst themselves. They are ready
with the compromise pursis.
2. It would be necessary to deal with the civil application. By the
said application, the legal heirs of Respondent No.1 are being sought to be
Digitally
signed by
SANSKRUTI A
SANSKRUTI THAKUR
A THAKUR Date:
2021.10.14
14:24:07
+0530
sat 6. ca 993-2016
brought on record by condoning the delay. There is a delay of 2 years 273
days in bringing the legal heirs of Respondent No.1 on record.
Perused the application.
I am satisfied that the delay has been satisfactorily explained and for
the effective adjudication of the first appeal, the legal heirs of Respondent
No.1 shall be brought on record. Necessarily, the application is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (a). The necessary amendment shall be carried out
forthwith.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 258 OF 2014
3. Counsel for the Appellant/Applicant states that he is not
desirous of prosecuting the said civil application. Necessarily, it is disposed
of.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2000
4. The first appeal arises out of the original judgment and decree
passed by the City Civil Court at Mumbai and the challenge is posed on the
grounds, which are set out in the memorandum of appeal. In the first
appeal, defendant no.1 is one Kersi Ardeshir Rabadi, whereas Respondent
No.2 is State of Maharashtra through the office of Controller of
Accommodation. As far as Simla House Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,
Mumbai, Respondent No.3, is concerned, the respective parties are ad-
idem, that he is a proforma Respondent, and there is no relief sought
against the said Respondent.
Under such circumstances, since the legal heirs of Respondent No.1
being brought on record, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent
sat 6. ca 993-2016
No.1 waive service in the first appeal for Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(c),
being legal heirs of Respondent No.1.
5. The first appeal is admitted on 9 January 2001 and is pending
for final adjudication. Since the draft of the compromise arrived at between
the Appellant and Respondent No.1 is ready, let the newly added
Respondents, i.e. the legal heirs of Respondent No.1, ink the said draft
compromise and place it before the court on the next date for hearing.
List for further hearing on 22 October 2021. Needless to state that in
case, if any of the newly added Respondents is not available, the draft can
be signed through the legal representative/constituted attorney holder as
permissible under law.
(SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
