G. S. PATEL
Neelam Vinay Parelkar – Appellant
Versus
Sandhya Yeshwant Parelkar of Bombay – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This is very unfortunate case. The original testamentary probate petition is of 2015, now pending for almost seven years. It has not progressed in the following circumstances. On 9th January 2017, there was common conditional order under the High Court Rules made by a learned Single Judge of this Court. That order, a copy of which at page 6, said that all office objections and filing defects were to be cured by 27 February 2017 with no possibility of an extension. In default, the petitions were to stand dismissed. This order covered many petitions from Sr Nos to 901 to 1452, except three matters that were segregated. The present Petition was one of those covered by that order. Its filing defects remained to be cured. The petition stood dismissed. It seems that a Notice of Motion No 25 of 2018 came to be filed for restoration. Oddly, that Petition was affirmed and made in the name of the Petitioner’s advocate rather than being in the Petitioner’s name with the Petitioner’s affirmation and signature. There is no point in dwelling on this. The matter was listed before me on 1st March 2018. Neither the Petitioner nor her Advocate were present. Nonetheless, I restored the P
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.