Bombay High Court

SANTOSH BAPURAO WAGHMARE AND OTHERSversusPADMAVATI BAJIRAO KHARAT AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court restored the order dismissing the writ petition against respondent No.1 and permitted service of notice by newspaper under Order 5 Rule 20 of the CPC.

Summary

The petitioners sought to recall an earlier order dated 24.07.2024 that dismissed their writ petition against respondent No.1, arguing that they could not serve notice due to an unknown change of address. They requested permission to serve respondent No.1 by publishing a notice in a newspaper under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court examined the submissions and noted that the notices previously issued were sent to the address provided by the decree‑holder, and that the petitioners had no knowledge of any alternate address. In the interest of justice, the court allowed the application, restored the earlier dismissal order, and authorized service of notice by newspaper at the petitioners' cost. The court directed the registry to prepare the notice and set a deadline for compliance, after which the civil application was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the order dismissing the writ petition against respondent No.1 can be recalled.
Whether service of notice by newspaper under Order 5 Rule 20 of the CPC is permissible in the present circumstances.
Whether the court may restore its earlier order in the interest of justice.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 5 Rule 20

Subjects

service of notice
court order
civil procedure
execution proceedings
writ petition
order restoration
interest of justice

Judgment

                                                     13-sr913ca.9769.2026.odt


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

              913 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9769 OF 2026
                          IN WP/7887/2024

                Santosh Bapurao Waghmare And Others
                              VERSUS
                 Padmavati Bajirao Kharat And Others

                              WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO. 7887 OF 2024

                                 ----
Mr.Amol Gandhi, Advocate for applicants
                                 ----

                          CORAM :       AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                          DATE  :       AUGUST 29, 2026
ORDER :-

           For want of taking steps against respondent no.1, the

petition was dismissed against respondent no.1 vide order dated

24.07.2024.



2.         Learned    advocate    for   the   applicants   submits      that

respondent no.1 is plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.1 of 1970. He would

submit that the Writ Petition arises out of the execution proceedings

being Regular Darkhast No.67 of 2012. The address of respondent no.1

was borrowed from the title clause of Exh.1 in the suit as also Exh.1 in

the Regular Darkhast.      The decree-holder had not intimated the

executing court or the parties about change in her address, if any, and
                                          2              13-sr913ca.9769.2026



hence the petitioner had no knowledge about the alternate address.

For this reasons, steps could not be taken within the given time and

as such the petitioner suffered loss of his petition against respondent

no.1.


3.          By this application, a composite prayer is made to recall

the order dismissing the Writ Petition against respondent no.1 and to

permit the petitioner to serve respondent no.1 by taking recourse to

Order 5 Rule 20 of Code of Civil Procedure by publishing a notice in a

newspaper at his cost.


4.          I have gone through the papers annexed with this

application as also with the Writ Petition. It seems that the notices

issued by this court in the Writ Petition to respondent no.1 were on

the same address as was stated by the plaintiff no.1/decree

holder/respondent no.1 in the related proceedings. Considering the

averments made in the application as also arguments made by

learned advocate for the petitioner I deem it appropriate to allow the

application in the interest of justice.


5.          Hence, I pass the following order:-


(i)         The order dated 24.07.2024 passed by this court

dismissing the petition against respondent no.1 stands restored.
                                    3                   13-sr913ca.9769.2026



(ii)       The petitioner is permitted to serve respondent no.1 by

publishing a court notice in a newspaper widely circulated in the Tq.

and Dist. Jalna, on their own costs. Mr.Gandhi, learned advocate for

the applicants states that the notice will be published in daily

“Sakal”.


(iii)      Registry to prepare a notice of respondent no.1 and hand

it over to Mr.Gandhi, learned advocate, within two weeks from today.


(iv)       Stand over to 24.09.2026.


(v)        In the meantime, the petitioner shall cause to publish the

court notice as observed above and shall submit to the Registry two

sets of newspapers.


(vi)       Civil Application stand disposed of.



                                [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
                              ………..


KBP

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…