Scribd
Upload
22 views5 pages

Ambikaprasad Reply

The document is a legal reply from the respondent, Ambikaprasad Ramkhilavan Yadav, regarding a Marji application filed by Anil Chandrkaprasad Yadav. The respondent argues that the applicant has not provided valid reasons for the delay in filing the application and claims that the application is frivolous and intended to delay proceedings. The respondent requests the court to dismiss the application with costs due to the lack of bona fide reasons for the delay.

Uploaded by

Jating Jamkhandi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
22 views5 pages

Ambikaprasad Reply

The document is a legal reply from the respondent, Ambikaprasad Ramkhilavan Yadav, regarding a Marji application filed by Anil Chandrkaprasad Yadav. The respondent argues that the applicant has not provided valid reasons for the delay in filing the application and claims that the application is frivolous and intended to delay proceedings. The respondent requests the court to dismiss the application with costs due to the lack of bona fide reasons for the delay.

Uploaded by

Jating Jamkhandi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BOMBAY

BANDRA BRANCH

MARJI NO. 43 OF 2024

IN

REVISION APPLICATION NO of 2024

IN

ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT 41

L.E. & C SUIT NO. 92/119 OF 2009

Anil Chandrkaprasad Yadav …… Applicant


Vs
Ambikaprasad Ramkhilavan Yadav ….. Respondents

REPLY OF RESPONDENT TO THE

MARJI APPLICATION

1. The Respondents says that the respondent has

read the copy of the Marji application, and in

reply thereto

this respondent has to state as under.

At the outset the Respondent say and submit

that

2. prima facie on the very face of it there is no

bonfide reasons shown by the applicant for


delay condonation and the Applicant has not

given any cogent reason for not filing the

revision application within limitation.

3. The Applicant had filed a frivolous application

with the intention to delay the proceeding. The

Respondent states that the issues were framed

on 25.02.2020 and the matter was kept for

evidence thereafter Plaintiff filed evidence and

the Respondent advocate conducted cross

examination and after that the matter was for

defendant evidence. The respondent filed

evidence on 19.10.2024. The Applicant as an

afterthought filed the application for framing

additional issues which was rejected by the

Hon’ble Court.

4. The Applicant had the knowledge of the Order

dated 07.11.2023 and the Marji Application is

filed on 24.04.2024 hence there is a delay of

more than 19 days in filing the Marji

Application hence the Applicants case that

there is only 19 days’ delay is false and


frivolous hence on this ground alone the

Application deserve to be dismissed. The

Medical certificate annexed states that the

applicant was not well from 25.12.1023 only

hence it after 45 days after the order was

passed hence the delay is deliberate on part of

applicants.

5. The Respondent further states that exemplary

cost may be imposed in case the court

condones the delay and allows the Application

6. For the reasons mentioned herein be the

Respondent prays that the application be

dismissed with cost.

Dated 14th February 2025

For Jating S Jamkhandi

Advocate for Respondent

Respondent

VERIFICATION
I, Ambikaprasad Ramkhilavan Yadav,

Respondent above named do hereby solemnly

declared that what is stated in foregoing para is

true and correct to my own knowledge and is

stated on information and belief and I believe

the same to be true.

Solemnly declared at Bombay)

This 14th day of February, 2025)

Before me,

Advocate for Respondent

IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT


BOMBAY
BANDRA BRANCH
MARJI NO. 43 OF 2024
IN
REVISION APPLICATION NO of 2024
IN
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT 41
L.E. & C SUIT NO. 92/119 OF 2009

Anil Chandrkaprasad Yadav ……

Applicant
Vs

Ambikaprasad Ramkhilavan Yadav …..

Respondents

--------------------------------
REPLY OF RESPONDENT TO

THE MARJI APPLICATION

------------------------------
Dated on __ Day of February 2025

JATING JAMKHANDI
ADVOCATES HIGH
COURT
155/1 H.K. Chawl
Behind Post Office,
S.M.Road, Sion Chunabhatti,
Mumbai-400022

You might also like