Bombay High Court

ATISHKUMAR MADANLAL GANDHIversusKALPANA ATISHKUMAR GANDHI AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The application for condonation of delay was dismissed due to the applicant's non‑appearance, and the pending revision application was consequently disposed of.

Summary

The petitioner, Atishkumar Madanlal Gandhi, filed a criminal application seeking condonation of delay, but failed to appear before the court despite a prior order noting the absence of his counsel. The court observed that the petitioner appeared to have lost interest in prosecuting the matter. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. As a result, the related criminal revision application (stamp) No. 11388 of 2025 could not survive and was also disposed of. The High Court Legal Aid Sub‑Committee was directed to pay the fees of the appointed legal‑aid advocate.

Issues considered

Whether the court can grant condonation of delay when the applicant fails to appear and is unrepresented
Whether the dismissal of the condonation application extinguishes the pending revision application

Subjects

criminal procedure
condonation of delay
revision
legal aid
non‑appearance

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:43171




                                                 -1-

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            910 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4131 OF 2025
                                      IN REVNST/11388/2025

                               ATISHKUMAR MADANLAL GANDHI
                                           VERSUS
                         KALPANA ATISHKUMAR GANDHI AND ANOTHER
                                            WITH
                   CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 11388 OF 2025

                                ATISHKUMAR MADANLAL GANDHI
                                           VERSUS
                           KALPANA ATISHKUMAR GANDHI AND ANOTHER

              Ms.A.S.Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No.1. (Appointed through
              Legal Aid)

                                   ( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )

                                      DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026

              PER COURT :


              1.             Vide order dated 04.09.2026, this Court already observed

              the absence of the learned Advocate for the Applicant and kept this

              matter for dismissal of the Application.



              2.             Today also, nobody appears for the Applicant. It seems

              that the Applicant has lost interest in prosecuting the Application.

              Hence,        the    Application    for    condonation     of    delay


              khs/Sept.2026/4131
                                   -2-

i.e.Cri.Appl.No.4131/2025 stands disposed of.



3.             In view of dismissal of the application for condonation of

delay, Cri.Revision Application (St.) No.11388/2025 does not survive,

hence also stands disposed of.



4.             The High Court Legal Aid Sub Committee to pay the fees of

the appointed Advocate as per rules.




                                       ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)




khs/Sept.2026/4131

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…