LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/omdeo-baliram-musale-ors-vs-prakash-ramchandra-mamidwar-ors-20240124/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Omdeo Baliram Musale & Ors. vs Prakash Ramchandra Mamidwar & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
24 January 2024
Case No.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11258 of 2015
Result
Dismissed
Bench
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Aravind Kumar
Citation
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1219 : 2024 INSC 93
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1219 : 2024 INSC 93
Issue for consideration
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the application for restoration of revision petition (in a suit for declaration) and accompanying application for condonation of delay.
Headnote

Suit – Suit for declaration related to a property dismissed for default – Application for restoration dismissed – Appeal dismissed – Revision petition dismissed by High Court – Application for restoration of the revision petition and condonation of delay dismissed by High Court – SLP thereagainst.

Held: The facts indicate that the suit that was filed in 1982 never took off as even summons were not issued – The suit that was filed in the year 1982 relates to an alleged unauthorized sale more than four decades back – The suit has virtually become infructuous for more than one reason – SLP dismissed. [Paras 13, 15]

Keywords: Suit for declaration · Revision petition · Application for restoration · Condonation of delay · Default · Summons · Infructuous

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Order 1. This Special Leave Petition is against the decision of the High Court1 in dismissing an application for restoration of a Civil Revision Application and the accompanying application for condonation of delay in sheer exasperation. The facts are as follows: 2. A simple prayer was made by the petitioners in a suit for declaration that the property belonging to the joint family, but their father wrongly sold it to third parties through a sale deed in the year 1980. 3. The suit came to be dismissed for default for not paying the process fee for service of notice on the LRs. of defendant
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →