RAMDAS SHIVRAM SATTUR versus RAMESHCHANDRA POPATLAL SHAH AND ORS.

RAMDAS SHIVRAM SATTUR versus RAMESHCHANDRA POPATLAL SHAH AND ORS.

The High Court was not justified in refusing restoration for respondent No.3 as her legal representatives were already before the court; the appeal does not abate with respect to respondent No.3.

Parties
Appellant: Ramdas Shivram Satitur; Respondent: Rameshchandra Popatlal Shah; Respondent No.3 (deceased): Tarabai; Respondent Advocate: Ajay Majithia; Respondent Advocate: Rajesh Kumar; Respondent Advocate: Kailash Chand
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 3807 of 2007 / Appeal From Bombay High Court Judgment in Civil Application No. 1362 of 2002 in Second Appeal No. 357 of 1986
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Abatement, Restoration of Appeal, Legal Representatives, Prosecution of Appeals
Civil Procedure Abatement Restoration of Appeal Legal Representatives Prosecution of Appeals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramdas Shivram Satitur

Appellant

Rameshchandra Popatlal Shah

Respondent

Tarabai

Respondent No.3 (deceased)

Ajay Majithia

Respondent Advocate

Rajesh Kumar

Respondent Advocate

Kailash Chand

Respondent Advocate

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 3807 of 2007 / Appeal From Bombay High Court Judgment in Civil Application No. 1362 of 2002 in Second Appeal No. 357 of 1986

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing the restoration application as regards respondent No.3 after her death when her legal heirs were already on record.
  2. 2 Effect of abatement and restoration proceedings under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC when legal heirs are parties to suit/appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court was not justified in refusing restoration for respondent No.3 as her legal representatives were already before the court; the appeal does not abate with respect to respondent No.3.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Restoration of appeal in respect of respondent No.3; no order as to costs.