Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 42947 (BOM)

MADHUKAR RAMCHANDRA POL v. PARASRAM TUKARAM KADAM DEC THR LRS AND ORS

WP/16286/2024 · 2025-05-06

Shri Sandeep V Marne

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Megha 17_IA_792_2025.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.16286 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 792 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.16286 OF 2024 Madhukar Ramchandra Pol ...Applicant V/s. Parasram Tukaram Kadam (Decd.) Through LRs. Suryakant Parasram Kadam & Ors. ...Respondents ______________ Mr. Prajakt Arjunwadkar for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mr. Ruturaj Pawar for Respondent No.1A. ______________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated: 6 MAY 2025. P.C.: 1) Petition challenges exercise of discretion by the Co- operative Court in allowing the application for restoration of the dispute application. The Co-operative Court has thought it appropriate to condone the delay in filing restoration application by imposing costs on the contesting Respondents. Order of the Co-operative Court has been upheld by the Co-operative Appellate Court on 28 July 2022. Page No. 1 of 2 6 May 2025 MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB Digitally signed by MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB Date: 2025.05.07 19:00:26 +0530 Megha 17_IA_792_2025.docx 2) Present Petition is filed in September 2024 after lapse of period of more than 2 years. Considering the nature of challenge in the present Petition, delay of two years would otherwise be fatal. Considering the fact that the Co-operative Court has exercised discretion in allowing application for restoration, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3) Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. 4) With rejection of the Petition, nothing would survive in the Interim Application, which is also disposed of. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 2 of 2 6 May 2025