Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 520 Bom
Judgement Date : 14 January, 2022
907.CA.14037.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14037 OF 2021
IN SAST/37264/2019
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14038 OF 2021
IN SAST/37264/2019
SHIVRAM VITHOBA TALANGKAR LRS. GANESH SHIVRAM TALANGKAR
LRS. SARASVATIBAI GANESHTALANGKAR AND ORS.
VERSUS
UMAJI MADHAV PIMPALE DIED LRS. PADMINABAI UMAJI PIMPALE AND
OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Amol Gandhi h/f. Mr. Mandlik Pratap P.
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 14.01.2022 PER COURT :
Heard the learned advocate Mr. Gandhi holding for Mr.
Mandlik.
2. He points out that the mistake, which was called upon to be
removed by the office by way of an office objection was in fact an error
which has perpetuated in mentioning wrong name in the judgments of both
the courts below. The appellant was not supposed to correct such an error
and it was for the office to take appropriate steps.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the Application, it is allowed. The
delay is condoned. The Second Appeal is restored to the file. Office to take
appropriate steps for correction of the names.
4. Civil Application No.14038/2021 has been filed for bringing on
907.CA.14037.21.odt
record the legal representatives of appellant No.2 Ganesh Shivram
Talangkar. After registration of Appeal, the Civil Application also stand
allowed and even the delay caused for taking the legal heirs on record, is
condoned. Necessary amendment is allowed to be carried out in the Appeal
Memo.
(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
habeeb
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!