Bombay High Court
SHESHARAO BABURAO RAUTRAO AND OTHERSversusYAMUNABAI BABURAO RAUTRAO DIED 2. GANGASAGAR SUDHAKAR GARAD
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The Court held that an appeal dismissed for procedural default can be restored where the applicant’s explanation shows that justice would be served by such restoration.
Summary
The applicants filed an application seeking restoration of an appeal that had been dismissed for non‑compliance and default by this Court on 28 August 2026. The applicants argued that they had filed a pursis indicating that the legal representatives of respondent No.1 were already on record, and therefore no further steps were required. The respondent opposed the restoration, contending that the procedural default should stand. The Court examined whether equity and the interest of justice justified setting aside the dismissal despite the procedural lapse. Finding merit in the applicants' explanation and deeming it in the interest of justice, the Court allowed the restoration of the appeal. The Court directed the applicants' counsel to strike out the name of respondent No.1 and listed the appeal for hearing on 5 October 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal dismissed for non‑compliance and default may be restored in the interest of justice.
Subjects
- restoration of appeal
- non‑compliance
- interest of justice
- civil procedure
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43051
1 1023 ca.10903.26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
1023 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10903 OF 2026
IN SA/206/2016
SHESHARAO BABURAO RAUTRAO AND OTHERS
VERSUS
SMT YAMUNABAI BABURAO RAUTRAO DIED
SOW. GANGASAGAR SUDHAKAR GARAD
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sunil V. Warad.
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. H. P. Jadhav.
...
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 22nd September, 2026.
P.C.:
1 This is an application for restoration of the appeal, which was
dismissed for non-compliance and default, as per the order dated 28 th
August, 2026, passed by this Court.
2 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the
application.
3 The learned counsel for the applicants submits that he had filed
pursis informing this Court that the legal representatives of respondent
No.1 are already on record. Therefore, the steps were not taken.
4 The learned counsel for respondent strongly opposed the
application.
2 1023 ca.10903.26.odt
5 Considering the reasons stated in the application, the application
deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. The application is
allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). The learned counsel for the
applicants / appellants is directed to bracket the name of respondent
No.1 forthwith.
6 List the appeal on 5th October, 2026, at 02:30 pm.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
nga
Checking your session…