Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shri Somnath Nanda Naik Palang, filed an appeal against an order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division in Inventory Proceeding No. 1/1992/A, which disposed of applications at exhibits 44, 49 and 56 by a common order. During the hearing, it was pointed out that the validity of the will involved in the dispute was pending adjudication in Appeal No. 247/2006 before the District Court. The court found that the impugned order could not stand and, by consent of both parties, set aside the order and remitted the matter to the Inventory Court for fresh adjudication of the applications according to law. The judgment was delivered by Justice P. V. Kakade on 25th September 2006.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Inventory Proceeding - Remand - Consent Order - The impugned order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division in Inventory Proceeding No. 1/1992/A was set aside by consent and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication of applications at exhibits 44, 49 and 56, as the validity of the will involved was pending in Appeal No. 247/2006 before the District Court (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order in Inventory Proceeding No. 1/1992/A could stand when the validity of the will involved was pending adjudication in Appeal No. 247/2006 before the District Court.
Final Decision
The impugned order passed by the lower Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Inventory Court for adjudication according to law pertaining to exhibit 44, 49 and 56.
Law Points
- Consent order
- Remand
- Inventory proceeding
- Will validity pending
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (09) 110
Appeal from Order No. 59 of 2006
Shri Nitin Sardessai for Appellant; Shri M. S. Usgaonkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Mandar G.S. Khandeparkar for Respondents No. 3 to 6
Shri Somnath Nanda Naik Palang
Late Smt. Radhabai Purshottam Naik Palang (since deceased) and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order in Inventory Proceeding No. 1/1992/A
Remedy Sought
Setting aside of the impugned order and remand for fresh adjudication
Filing Reason
The impugned order disposed of applications at exhibits 44, 49 and 56, but the validity of the will involved was pending in another appeal.
Previous Decisions
Civil Judge, Senior Division passed common order on exhibits 44, 49 and 56 in Inventory Proceeding No. 1/1992/A.
Issues
Whether the impugned order could stand when the validity of the will was pending before the District Court in Appeal No. 247/2006.
Submissions/Arguments
By consent of both parties, the impugned order was set aside and matter remitted.
Ratio Decidendi
When the validity of a will is pending adjudication in another proceeding, the inventory court's order on related applications cannot stand and must be remitted for fresh consideration.
Judgment Excerpts
the impugned order cannot stand and by consent the impugned order passed by the lower Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Inventory Court for adjudication according to law pertaining to exhibit 44, 49 and 56.
Procedural History
The Civil Judge, Senior Division passed a common order on exhibits 44, 49 and 56 in Inventory Proceeding No. 1/1992/A. The appellant filed Appeal from Order No. 59 of 2006 against that order. During hearing, it was noted that the validity of the will was pending in Appeal No. 247/2006 before the District Court. By consent, the impugned order was set aside and matter remitted.
