Bombay High Court
MUBARK BIN ISLAMBIN CHAUS AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS HONBLE MINISTER OF STATE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- ROHIT W JOSHI
Holding
The court allowed the restoration of the review application dismissed in default.
Summary
The review application filed by Mubark Bin Islambin Chaus and others was dismissed in default because their counsel was absent at the hearing in Nagpur, while the respondent's counsel was present. The applicants sought restoration of the review application, explaining that the counsel could not travel due to a petroleum shortage in the Gulf region. The respondent's counsel disputed any consent to an adjournment but acknowledged receiving telephone communications about the matter. To avoid further dispute, the court deemed it appropriate to restore the review application so that it could be heard on its merits. Consequently, the application for restoration was allowed and the review petition was scheduled for a hearing on 5 May 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether a review application dismissed for default can be restored when the applicant's counsel was unable to appear due to external circumstances.
- Whether the respondent's objection to an adjournment affects the court's power to restore the dismissed review application.
Subjects
- review petition
- restoration
- default dismissal
- adjournment
- civil procedure
- procedural law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:19811
1 02. CA 4698.26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
AURANGABAD BENCH : AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4698 OF 2026
IN
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.206 OF 2025
Mubark Bin Islambin Chaus and ors.
Vs.
State of Maharashtra through its Hon’ble Minister of State Revenue Department
and ors.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
Mr. Jagdish V. Deshpande, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. Shaikh Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa, Advocate for non-applicant
No.6.
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 30.04.2026.
. The application for review was fixed for hearing
on 27.03.2026. On the previous date of hearing it was
agreed between the learned advocates that rather than
advancing submissions via video-conferencing, they
would come to Nagpur for hearing of the application. Mr.
Mujtaba, learned advocate for non-applicant No.6 was
present before this Court at Nagpur on 27.03.2026.
learned advocate for applicants was absent. Mr. Mujtaba,
made a statement that he was not appraised that the
learned advocate for the applicants was to seek
adjournment and therefore, he had come to Nagpur all
the way from Aurangabad for hearing of the application.
In view of absence of learned advocate for the applicants
and particularly having regard to the statement made by
2 02. CA 4698.26.odt
the learned advocate for respondent No.6, the
application for review was dismissed in default.
2. Present application is filed for restoration of
review application.
3. Mr. Deshpande, learned advocate for the
applicants, contends that it was conveyed to the learned
advocate for the non-applicants that, due to the situation
prevailing in Gulf region causing scarcity of petroleum
products, it was not possible for him to come down to
Nagpur.
4. Although Mr. Mujtaba disputes that he had
consented for adjournment, in fairness, he does not
dispute that telephonic calls in this regard were received
by him.
5. In order to avoid further controversy on this
aspect, it is deemed appropriate to restore the
application for review so that the review petition can be
heard on merits.
6. Application for restoration is allowed.
7. List the review application for hearing on
05.05.2026.
8. Interim order, if any, to continue till the next
date.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
Tαɳɱαყ...
Checking your session…