Bombay High Court

RAVIKUMAR GOPICHAND JHAMNANIversusSYED KASAM BUDHAN DIED THROUGH LRS SYED HAMID SYED KASAM AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The conditional order dated 25.03.2026 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original file.

Summary

The applicant filed a civil application seeking recall of a conditional order dated 25.03.2026 that had directed the petitioner to furnish the current address of respondent No.3 or face dismissal for want of prosecution. The applicant argued that an office objection prevented the address from being furnished earlier, but now the correct address is available. The Court considered whether it could set aside its own conditional order and restore the writ petition. It held that the conditional order could be recalled and the writ petition restored to its original file. Consequently, the civil application was disposed of and a fresh notice to respondent No.3 was ordered, with liberty to serve by private mode.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court may recall its own conditional order directing the petitioner to furnish the address of a respondent and restore the writ petition.

Subjects

writ petition
conditional order
recall of order
service of notice
civil procedure
address objection
High Court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42364
914 CA 4776 26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

914 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4776 OF 2026
IN WP/5703/2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5703 OF 2025

RAVIKUMAR GOPICHAND JHAMNANI
VERSUS
SYED KASAM BUDHAN DIED THROUGH LRS SYED HAMID SYED KASAM
AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Dr. Nandedkar Sahebrao G.
Advocate for Respondent nos. 1A to 1F and 2 : Mr. Shaikh Naseer
...
CORAM : SMT. MANJUSHA AJAY
DESHPANDE, J.

DATE : 11.09.2026

PER COURT :

This application has been filed by the applicant seeking recall of the
conditional order passed by this Court on 25.03.2026.

2. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that, by the said
conditional order, the petitioner was directed to take necessary steps, failing
which the matter was liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. It is
submitted that, despite due diligence, the applicant could not remove the
office objection regarding furnishing the current address of respondent No.3,
and consequently, the writ petition came to be dismissed. It is further
submitted that the applicant is now in a position to furnish the fresh and
correct address of respondent No.3. The learned Advocate, therefore, prays
that the order dated 25.03.2026 be recalled and the writ petition be restored
to its original file.

1/2
914 CA 4776 26.odt

3. In view of the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the
applicant and for the reasons stated in the application, the conditional order
passed by this Court on 25.03.2026 is hereby recalled. The writ petition is
restored to its original file.

4. Civil Application is disposed of.

5. Issue fresh notice to respondent no. 3 in writ petition, returnable on
28.09.2026.

6. In addition to the regular mode of service, the petitioner is at liberty
to serve the respondent no. 3 by private mode.

( SMT. MANJUSHA AJAY DESHPANDE, J.)

mkd/-

2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…