Bombay High Court

UMAKANT GURUNATH DESHMUKHversusTHE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LATUR

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

A dismissal for want of prosecution may be set aside where the applicant demonstrates a bona fide procedural lapse and seeks appropriate relief.

Summary

Umakant Gurunath Deshmukh filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court for want of prosecution. He later filed a leave note on 11 November 2025, but his junior counsel failed to bring this fact to the Court's attention. Consequently, the dismissal stood, prompting Deshmukh to move a civil application seeking relief. The applicant argued that the procedural lapse should not prejudice his substantive rights. The Court, after considering the explanations and the application, allowed the civil application in accordance with prayer clause (B). The order effectively set aside the earlier dismissal and restored the petitioner's claim.

Issues considered

Whether a dismissal of a writ petition for want of prosecution can be set aside on account of a procedural lapse such as failure to inform the Court of a leave note.

Subjects

civil procedure
want of prosecution
leave note
high court
procedural lapse
relief

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:7632
                                           (1)                     1002-ca-1951-2026.odt



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1951 OF 2026
                                          IN WP/4541/2025

                            UMAKANT GURUNATH DESHMUKH
                                          VERSUS
                  THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE
                          ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LATUR
                                              ...
               Mr. Balaji Bapurao Yenge, Advocate for Applicant.
                                              ...
                                      CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                      DATED : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026.
               P.C.:-

               1.      Heard Mr. Yenge, learned Advocate appearing for applicant.


               2.      He submits that on 11.11.2025 he had filed leave note and
               his junior colleague has failed to point out this fact to this Court.
               Resultantly, Writ Petition has been dismissed for want of
               prosecution.


               3.      Considering reasons as stated in application and submissions
               advanced, Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer Clause
               (B).


                                                     (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                              JUDGE
               Devendra/February-2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…