Bombay High Court
MORESHWAR HARI BHIDE DECD THR LHRSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- M M SATHAYE
Holding
Since the legal representatives had already been brought on record and the revocation of probate proceedings were pending, the petitioners were deemed to have complied with the 09.04.2026 order.
Summary
The petitioners, heirs of the deceased petitioner, filed an interim application seeking a declaration that they had complied with the order dated 09.04.2026 directing them to take steps concerning the deceased petitioner. The petitioners argued that they had already been brought on record as legal representatives by the order dated 24.03.2008 in Civil Application No. 2642 of 2005. The respondents contended that the statement made on 09.04.2026 was incorrect because the revocation of probate application was still pending, relying on an order dated 10.03.2016. The Court examined the earlier orders, noting that the legal representatives were indeed permitted on record and that the revocation proceedings were at the restoration stage, thus not rendering the petitioners' statement inaccurate. Consequently, the Court recorded that the 09.04.2026 order was complied with and disposed of the interim application, leaving the substantive rights and rival contentions open for final hearing.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners have complied with the order dated 09.04.2026 directing steps in respect of the deceased petitioner.
- Whether the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner were duly brought on record by the order dated 24.03.2008.
- Whether the pending revocation of probate proceedings affects the correctness of the petitioners' statement made on 09.04.2026.
Subjects
- legal representative
- probate
- revocation of probate
- restoration of proceedings
- compliance of order
- interim application
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
905-IA-3431-2026 (C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3431 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4139 OF 2000
Shri Moreshwar Hari Bhide (since deceased) ...Applicants
SNEHA through his heirs and legal representatives and
NITIN Anr.
CHAVAN Versus
Digitally signed
by SNEHA NITIN
CHAVAN
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents
Date: 2026.05.08
17:12:50 +0530
****
Mr. K.P. Shah for the Applicant.
Ms. Kavita Solunke, Addl. GP a/w Mr. Sandip Babar, AGP for
Respondent/State.
Mr. Abhishek Deshmukh for Respondent No.3.
****
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 8th MAY, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This application is filed by the Petitioners requesting that
compliance of order dated 09.04.2026 be recorded.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant pointed out that on
09.04.2026 under a wrong impression that steps were not taken in
respect of bringing legal representative of deceased Petitioner on record,
it was not pointed out to the Court that the present Applicants are
already brought on record. He invited the Court’s attention to order
dated 24.03.2008 when Civil Application No. 2642 of 2005 was allowed
thereby the Applicants were permitted to be brought on record as legal
representative of the original Petitioner.
Sneha Chavan 1
905-IA-3431-2026 (C).doc
4. Perused the order dated 24.03.2008 as well as copy of Civil
Application No. 2642 of 2005. Clearly on 24.03.2008, the application
(for bringing legal representatives of the Petitioner on record) is
allowed and the amendment is carried out.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3, relying on
Affidavit-in-Reply dated 07.05.2026 (which is tendered in the Court and
taken on record) submitted that the statement made by the Advocate
for the Applicant on 09.04.2026 is incorrect because the application for
revocation of probate is not rejected and it is pending for consideration.
He relies upon an order dated 10.03.2016 passed in MA No. 106 of
2011 in support of his submissions.
6. I have perused the said order dated 10.03.2016. It appears
that the Misc. Application No. 172 of 2005 was converted into RCS No.
236 of 2008 and there was delay in filing application for restoration of
said proceedings. The order dated 10.03.2016 condones the delay in
filing the application for restoration. Perusal of the case status, annexed
to the reply also indicates that the Restoration Application No. 328 of
2016 is pending for awaiting notice.
7. It therefore appears that proceedings for revocation of probate
are pending at restoration stage and therefore, it cannot be said, in
strict sense, that statement made on 09.04.2026 on behalf of
Applicants, is incorrect. Be that as it may.
8. Since, the permission to bring legal representatives of the
deceased Petitioner on record is already granted, way back on
24.03.2008, and since the rights of the parties and rival contentions on
merits are already directed to be considered at the stage of final hearing
of the petition, prayer made in the present application can be granted.
9. Accordingly, it is recorded that order dated 09.04.2026
Sneha Chavan 2
905-IA-3431-2026 (C).doc
directing the Petitioners to take steps in respect of deceased Petitioner,
stands complied. Rival contentions of both sides on rights of the parties
are kept open.
10. The application is disposed of in above terms.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Sneha Chavan 3
Checking your session…