Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

NANDU RAMRAO NILEWAD.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA THR., THROUGH COLLECTOR LATUR AND ORS.

Disposal
Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Holding

The Court quashed the Registrar's order and restored the cross‑objections, condoning any delay, provided the applicants remove all office objections within four weeks.

Summary

The applicants filed multiple civil applications seeking restoration of cross‑objections that had been dismissed by the Registrar for failure to remove office objections within the prescribed time. The Registrar's order was challenged on the ground that the delay in filing the cross‑objections could be condoned. The Court examined its inherent power to set aside procedural orders and to condone delay where justice so requires. It held that the Registrar's order was quashed and the cross‑objections were restored, subject to the condition that the applicants remove all outstanding office objections within four weeks. The Court further stipulated that failure to comply would render the restoration order ineffective and that no interest or statutory benefits would accrue for the period of delay. Consequently, the applications for restoration were allowed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Registrar's order refusing registration of cross‑objections can be set aside despite the applicants' delay.
  • Whether the Court can condone the delay in filing cross‑objections and restore them subject to conditions.
  • Whether the restored cross‑objections entitle the applicants to interest or statutory benefits for the delayed period.

Subjects

  • restoration of cross‑objections
  • condonation of delay
  • Civil Procedure Code
  • registration of objections
  • interest and statutory benefits

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42290



                                             1
                                         937 CA 10623 OF 2026 to 942, 945, 948, 949

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         937 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10623 OF 2026
                                   IN X-OBJST/19712/2026

                                BAPURAO TUKARAM MULKE.
                                           VERSUS
                        THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA THR., THROUGH
                               COLLECTOR LATUR AND ORS.
                                            WITH
                           CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14763 OF 2019
                                     IN FAST/13522/2019
                                            WITH
                           CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14764 OF 2019
                                     IN FAST/13522/2019
                                            AND
                         938 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10625 OF 2026
                                   IN X-OBJST/19736/2026

                     BALAJI ALBA MULKE DIED THR LRS VYANKATRAO AND
                                             ANR.
                                            VERSUS
                        THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA THR., THROUGH
                                COLLECTOR LATUR AND ORS.
                                             WITH
                            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14774 OF 2019
                                      IN FAST/13549/2019
                                             WITH
                            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14773 OF 2019
                                      IN FAST/13549/2019
                                             AND
                          939 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10627 OF 2026
                                    IN X-OBJST/19760/2026

                      VISHWANATH KONDIBA GOJEWAD DIED THR L.RS.
                       BHAGIRATH VISHWANATH GOJEWAD AND ORS.
                                        VERSUS
                        THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA THR., THROUGH
                               COLLECTOR LATUR AND ORS.
                                         WITH
                         2
                     937 CA 10623 OF 2026 to 942, 945, 948, 949

       CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14768 OF 2019
                 IN FAST/13540/2019
                        WITH
       CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14767 OF 2019
                 IN FAST/13540/2019
                        AND
     940 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10630 OF 2026
               IN X-OBJST/19755/2026

       GANPAT TUKARAM MULKE AND ANR.
                      VERSUS
   THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA THR., THROUGH
          COLLECTOR LATUR AND ORS.
                       WITH
      CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14765 OF 2019
                IN FAST/13555/2019
                       WITH
      CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14766 OF 2019
                IN FAST/13555/2019
                       AND
    941 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10632 OF 2026
              IN X-OBJST/19715/2026

       VYANKTRAO BALAJI MULKE AND ANR.
                       VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH COLLECTOR,
                   LATUR AND ORS.
                        WITH
       CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14771 OF 2019
                 IN FAST/13544/2019
                        WITH
       CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14772 OF 2019
                 IN FAST/13544/2019
                        AND
     942 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10633 OF 2026
               IN X-OBJST/19762/2026

      SOPAN TUKARAM GOJEWAD AND ORS.
                   VERSUS
   THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA THR., THROUGH
          COLLECTOR LATUR AND ORS.
                         3
                     937 CA 10623 OF 2026 to 942, 945, 948, 949

                        WITH
       CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14770 OF 2019
                 IN FAST/13537/2019
                        WITH
       CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14769 OF 2019
                 IN FAST/13537/2019
                        AND
     945 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10639 OF 2026
               IN X-OBJST/19697/2026

BALAJI ATMARAM MULKE DIED THR L.RS. PARMESHWAR
               BALJAI MULKE AND ORS.
                        VERSUS
    THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA THR., THROUGH
            COLLECTOR LATUR AND ORS.
                         WITH
        CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14759 OF 2019
                  IN FAST/13531/2019
                         WITH
        CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14760 OF 2019
                  IN FAST/13531/2019
                         AND
      948 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10664 OF 2026
                IN X-OBJST/19746/2026

             NANDU RAMRAO NILEWAD.
                       VERSUS
    THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA THR., THROUGH
           COLLECTOR LATUR AND ORS.
                        WITH
       CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14757 OF 2019
                 IN FAST/13261/2019
                        WITH
       CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14758 OF 2019
                 IN FAST/13261/2019
                        AND
     949 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10665 OF 2026
               IN X-OBJST/19703/2026

            HULAPPA PIRAJI BONGALE.
                   VERSUS
                                    4
                               937 CA 10623 OF 2026 to 942, 945, 948, 949

 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH COLLECTOR,
                      LATUR AND ORS.
                            WITH
           CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14761 OF 2019
                    IN FAST/13559/2019
                            WITH
           CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14762 OF 2019
                    IN FAST/13559/2019
                              ...
Mr. S. R. Bagal, Advocate for Applicants/claimants in all
matters
Mr. R. K. Ingole, Mr. A. V. Lavte, Mr. B. V. Virdhe, Mr. S. P.
Sonpawale, Mr. K. B. Jadhavar and Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGPs for
Respondent-State respectively
                              …

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

P.C. :-

CIVIL APPLICATIONS FOR RESTORATION

.         Mr.   S.   R.    Bagal,   learned     Advocate      for    the

applicants/claimants submits that the registration of the cross-

objections was refused on account of failure of the applicants

to remove office objections within the stipulated time. The

present applications are filed seeking restoration of the cross-

objections by setting aside the said order of dismissal.

2.        For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are

allowed. The delay, if any, caused in filing the cross-objections

stands condoned. The order passed by the learned Registrar
                                 5
                             937 CA 10623 OF 2026 to 942, 945, 948, 949

(Judicial) of this Court is hereby quashed and set aside.

3.    The cross-objections are restored to their original

position, provided that the applicants shall remove all office

objections within a period of four weeks from today.

4.    It is made clear that if the office objections are not

removed within the stipulated period, this order shall

automatically lose its effect.

5.    It is clarified that if the cross-objections are allowed, the

applicants shall not be entitled to interest and statutory

benefits for the delayed period.



                                     ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
PRW


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.