Bombay High Court

VANDANA W/O. BHAUSAHEB RAUT AND ANRversusBHAUSAHEB S/O. VISHNU RAUT AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The application is dismissed for want of prosecution as the petitioners failed to appear despite a prior warning.

Summary

The petitioners, Vandana and others, filed a criminal revision application. No counsel appeared on their behalf for the hearing. The Court had previously warned that failure to appear would result in dismissal. On the scheduled date, still no representative for the petitioners was present. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for want of prosecution. The dismissal was ordered without any further hearing.

Issues considered

Whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the petitioners' non-appearance?

Subjects

criminal revision
want of prosecution
dismissal
procedural default

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37568


                                                                            2112.17appln
                                                        (1)

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         912 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2112 OF 2017
                                         IN/WITH
                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.122 OF 2017

                           VANDANA W/O. BHAUSAHEB RAUT AND ANR
                                           VERSUS
                           BHAUSAHEB S/O. VISHNU RAUT AND OTHERS
                                                     …..
                 Mr V. M. Chate, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 3 to 9
                                                …..

                                              CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                                DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026

                 P. C. :


                 1.             None is present for the applicants.


                 2.             On 12/08/2026, this Court observed that, if no one

                 appeared for the applicants on the next date of hearing, this Court

                 would be constrained to dismiss this matter. Despite this order, no one

                 is present for the applicants today.


                 3.             Hence, this application is dismissed for want of

                 prosecution.



                                                          [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
                 sjk

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…