Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4395 Bom
Judgement Date : 26 April, 2022
Digitally signed by
JAYARAJAN JAYARAJAN
ANJAKULATH ANJAKULATH NAIR
NAIR Date: 2022.04.27
18:31:12 +0530
1/3 07 IA-1405.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1405 OF 2019
IN
SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO.27077 OF 2019
ALONG WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.1651 OF 2022
[Not on board. Taken up on board on mentioning.]
Sumitra Sharad Vetoskar & Ors. ] ... Applicants
Vs.
Vimalchand Chandrakant Bhurke & ]
Ors. ] ... Respondents
...
Mr. Aditya P. Kharkar h/f. Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar for the
applicants.
...
CORAM : SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 26TH APRIL, 2022.
P.C. :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the application, which seeks condonation of delay of 81 days in instituting the appeal.
AJN
2/3 07 IA-1405.19.odt
2. On perusal of the application, it can be seen that after obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment, legal opinion was sought and the applicant being the senior citizens and particularly they all are women, they took necessary steps only after effecting consultation with their counsel and this has caused the delay.
3. Being satisfied that the delay is bona fide, it deserves to be condoned. The interim application is made absolute. The appeal is directed to be registered.
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.1651 OF 2022 [Not on board. Taken up on board on mentioning.]
4. By the present application, the memo of second appeal is sought to be amended by deleting the name of respondent No.4, who has expired on 29/11/2016. His legal heir being respondent No.5 is already on record and, therefore, the amendment is proposed in the memo of appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the application.
6. In the wake of the event of death of respondent No.4, his deletion is sought, which deserves to be granted by allowing the
AJN 3/3 07 IA-1405.19.odt
application in terms of prayer clause (a). Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith.
7. At this stage, learned counsel states that inadvertently in the memo of appeal, the name of respondent No.4 is not reflected and, an office objection to that effect, has been raised. The learned counsel states that he shall insert the name of respondent No.4 in the memo of appeal, just to be deleted. As far as the interim application is concerned, since the name of respondent No.4 is already shown therein, his name is permitted to be deleted from the application, in the wake of presence of his legal heir on record.
8. List the appeal for admission after summer vacation.
[SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.]
AJN
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!