Bombay High Court

LALA SHANKARRAO PAWARversusRAMA SHANKARRAO PAWAR

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The writ petition is restored, with the advocate ordered to deposit Rs. 5000 as costs, and the earlier dismissal order is recalled.

Summary

The petitioner obtained interim relief in a writ petition but failed to prosecute the case, leading to its dismissal for want of prosecution. An application (Civil Application No. 5341 of 2026) was filed to restore the writ petition, and the court initially restored it on the condition that the petitioner’s advocate would work the matter on a specified date. The advocate again failed to appear on two subsequent listings, resulting in another dismissal. The petitioner filed a further application for restoration; the court, invoking the principle that a litigant should not suffer due to an advocate’s negligence, granted a final opportunity to prosecute the case, imposing a cost of Rs. 5000 on the advocate. The earlier order dated 27.08.2026 was recalled, and the writ petition was restored subject to the cost deposit.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate judicial response when a writ petition is repeatedly dismissed for want of prosecution due to an advocate's negligence?
Can the court impose costs on an advocate for failure to prosecute a petition?
Should a litigant be allowed a further opportunity to pursue a writ petition despite repeated non‑compliance by counsel?

Subjects

restoration of writ petition
want of prosecution
advocate negligence
costs on counsel
civil procedure
High Court

Judgment

                                1
                                             908 CA 10539 OF 2026

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            908 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10539 OF 2026
                        IN WP/9215/2023

              LALA SHANKARRAO PAWAR
                        VERSUS
             RAMA SHANKARRAO PAWAR
                           ...
Mr. U. M. Maske Patil h/f. Mr. V. V. Udhan, Advocate for
Applicant
                           …

                       CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                       DATED : 11th September 2026

P.C. :-

.         This Court notes the lethargy on the part of learned

Advocate for the petitioner to work out the matter after

obtaining interim relief from this Court as the matter was

listed for hearing on earlier occasion whereby, for want of

prosecution, the same was dismissed.

2.        Subsequently Civil Application No.5341 of 2026 was

filed for restoration of the writ petition. On 06.08.2026, this

Court accepted the reasons rendered by the learned Advocate

for the petitioner and restored the matter to its original

position. Obviously, this was with an understanding that the

learned Advocate for the petitioner would have to work out
                                2
                                             908 CA 10539 OF 2026

the matter on the given date.

3.    Again, the matter was then listed twice. However, on

both occasions, learned Advocate failed to appear to prosecute

the matter despite giving an assurance on the earlier occasion.

Pursuant to that, the writ petition again came to be dismissed

for want of prosecution.

4.    Now, this is another application for restoration of the

writ petition.   Ordinarily, this Court would not have

entertained such application where the negligence and

lethargy of learned Advocate in prosecuting the matter and

failure to disobey the earlier orders of this Court are noticed.

However, in the interest of justice and under the principle that

a litigant must not suffer the effect of lethargy or negligence

of his advocate, I deem it appropriate to give last chance to

the petitioner to work out the matter on merits.

5.    However, this concession shall be at the costs of

Rs.5000/-. Learned Advocate for the petitioner would submit

that for the cost, he shall not tax the client. The statement is

accepted.

6.    The writ petition stands restored.
                              3
                                            908 CA 10539 OF 2026

7.    The order dated 27.08.2026 stands recalled, provided

that learned Advocate for the petitioner deposits such costs

from his own pocket in the High Court Bar Association

Library, Aurangabad. The costs be deposited today itself.

8.    Stand over to 22.09.2026. (first on board)



                                  ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

PRW

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…