Bombay High Court
VRINDA J. MISTRY SINCE DECD. THR. LRS AND ANR.versusSHOBHANA NAMDEO MISTRY AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- RAJESH S PATIL
Holding
The court condoned the delay and allowed the interim application to record the legal heirs, subject to a cost order.
Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of the deceased Mrs. Vrinda J. Mistry, filed an interim application to have their names recorded as parties in Writ Petition No. 4343 of 2005. The application was filed after a delay of 4,071 days, which the respondents contested on the ground that the petition had already abated and no justification for the delay was provided. The petitioners relied on paragraphs 13‑17 of their application and cited precedents where courts had condoned similar delays, notably Keshao s/o Kawadu Maral v. State of Maharashtra (2005) and Sardar Amarjit Singh Karla v. Pramod Gupta (2003). The bench, referencing these authorities, held that the delay could be condoned and allowed the interim application, subject to a cost order of Rs. 10,000 payable to the Kirtikar Law Library. The court also directed that the amendment to record the heirs be made within two weeks and listed the writ petition for final hearing on 29‑06‑2026.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay of over ten years in filing an interim application to record legal heirs can be condoned.
- Whether the writ petition is deemed abated due to the passage of time.
- Whether the interim application should be allowed despite the delay.
Subjects
- legal heirs
- condonation of delay
- interim application
- abated petition
- civil procedure
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
50. IA 863-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 863 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4343 OF 2005
Mrs. Vrinda J. Mistry (since deceased) through ..Applicants
legal heirs
Versus
ANAND
SUDHAKAR Shobhana Namdeo Mistry (since deceased) through ..Respondents
SUDAME
Digitally signed by
legal heir & ors.
ANAND SUDHAKAR
SUDAME
Date: 2026.05.04
19:06:21 +0530
Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar i/b. Mr. Mangesh D. Chavan a/w. Mr. R. M.
Gogte, Advocates, for the Applicants
Mr. Prashant Sarwankar, Advocate, for Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(d)
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 30.04.2026
P. C.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 863 OF 2026
1. The aforesaid Interim Application has been filed to bring on
record legal heirs of the deceased Petitioner No. 1. There is a delay of
4071 days in filing the present Interim Application.
2. Mr. Sarwankar, learned Counsel for the Respondents has strongly
opposed this Application on the ground that the Petition has already
been abated and that there are no reasons in the Interim Application
for such huge delay in filing the present Interim Application.
Anand 1 of 4
50. IA 863-2026.doc
3. Mr. Kanetkar, learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that in
the Interim Application, reasons have been specifically mentioned in
para Nos. 13 to 17.
4. The Division Bench of this Court in Keshao s/o. Kawadu Maral
and another Versus State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2005
(1) MahLJ 1059, condoned the delay of six years in filing the
Application of bringing the legals heirs on record, relying on the
Supreme Court judgment of Sardar Amarjit Singh Karla (dead) by LRS.
and others Versus Pramod Gupta (Smt.) (dead) by LRS. and others,
reported in 2003 (3) SCC 272.
5. Taking into consideration the above Judgments and for the
reasons stated in the Application, this Interim Application stands
allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) subject to payment
of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the Kirtikar Law Library, High
Court, Bombay. Costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be within a period of two
weeks from today.
6. Amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from
today.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 862 OF 2015
1. Mentioned. Not on board. Taken on board.
2. This Interim Application has been filed to bring on record legal
Anand 2 of 4
50. IA 863-2026.doc
heirs of the deceased Respondent No. 1. There is a delay of 1418 days
in filing the present Interim Application.
3. Mr. Sarwankar, learned Counsel for the Respondents has strongly
opposed this Application on the ground that the Petition has already
been abated and that there is no explanation given in the Interim
Application for such huge delay in filing the present Interim
Application.
4. Mr. Kanetkar, learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that in
the Interim Application, reasons have been specifically mentioned in
para Nos. 10 to 13.
5. The Division Bench of this Court in Keshao s/o. Kawadu Maral
and another Versus State of Maharashtra and others , reported in 2005
(1) MahLJ 1059, condoned the delay of six years in filing the
Application of bringing the legals heirs on record, relying on the
Supreme Court judgment of Sardar Amarjit Singh Karla (dead) by LRS.
and others Versus Pramod Gupta (Smt.) (dead) by LRS. and others,
reported in 2003 (3) SCC 272.
6. Taking into consideration the above Judgments and for the
reasons stated in the Application, this Interim Application stands
allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) subject to payment
of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the Kirtikar Law Library, High
Anand 3 of 4
50. IA 863-2026.doc
Court, Bombay. Costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be within a period of two
weeks from today.
7. Amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from
today.
8. The Writ Petition be listed on 29.06.2026 under the caption
“For Final Hearing”.
9. Parties are permitted to file a short synopsis, notes of argument
and the Judgments relied upon by them on or before 14.06.2026.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)
Anand 4 of 4
Checking your session…