Bombay High Court
SHANKAR KONDO KALEKAR AND OTHERSversusSUKHADEO RAGHUNATH SINGI
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The revision application is dismissed for non‑prosecution.
Summary
The applicants filed Civil Revision Application No. 135 of 2007 seeking relief against the respondent. The matter remained pending for many years, and on multiple occasions the applicants and their counsel failed to appear, either physically or via video conference. The respondent's counsel highlighted that some of the applicants had died, arguing that the application was thus abated, and also emphasized prejudice caused by the applicants' casual approach. The court, after granting a final opportunity for appearance on 21 September 2026, found no applicants or counsel present and accepted the respondent's request. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision application for non‑prosecution.
Issues considered
- Whether a civil revision application pending for a long period should be dismissed on the ground of non‑appearance of the applicants.
- Whether the death of some applicants results in abatement of the revision application.
Subjects
- civil revision
- non‑appearance
- abatement
- dismissal
- procedural law
- court orders
Judgment
1-CRA-135-2007 (C).docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 135 OF 2007
Shankar Kondo Kalekar & Others …...Applicants
Versus
Sukhadeo Raghunath Singi (Since Deceased) …...Respondent
Through LRs
Smt. Saroj Dipak Singhi
——————
None for Applicants.
Ms. Vaishnavi Shelar i/b. Ms. Shruti Tulpule for Respondent.
——————
Coram : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
Date : 21st September 2026.
PER COURT :
1. This matter is listed at Serial No. 1 under the caption “For Disposal”.
2. On 16th September 2026, the following order was passed :
“1. None present for the Applicant.
2. Heard Mr. Pradeep Salgar, learned Advocate for the
Respondent.
3. On 17th August 2026, the following order was passed :
“1. When this application was called out, neither the
Applicants nor the Advocate for the Applicants were
osk 1 of 3
1-CRA-135-2007 (C).docx
present, either physically or through V.C. mode.
2. None appears for the Respondent.
3. This Application is of the year 2007. To afford an
opportunity for the Applicants/Advocate for the
Applicants and the Advocate for the Respondent to
appear and argue the case, list the present Civil
Revision Application on 16th September, 2026 under
the caption "For Dismissal".”
4. Today, again, neither the Applicants nor the Advocate for the
Applicants are present, either physically or through VC mode.
5. Mr. Pradeep Salgar, learned Advocate for the Respondent,
states that some of the Applicants have expired, as a result of
which this Application stands abated. He therefore insists for
dismissal of this Application on two counts, viz., (i) non-
appearance of the Applicants and (ii) on the ground of
abatement.
6. Despite the order dated 17th August 2026, I deem it fit and
proper to afford one more opportunity to the Applicants /
Advocate for the Applicants to appear, list on 21st September
2026, under the caption “For Disposal”.”
3. Today, when this matter was called out, neither the Applicants nor the
Advocate for the Applicants are present either physically or through V.C.
mode. The names of the Applicants and the Advocate on Record ( Adv. N. P.
Shimpi), were called out by the Sheristadar. None appears.
4. Ms. Vaishnavi Shelar, learned Advocates for the Respondent, by
referring to the order dated 16 th September 2026, insists for dismissal of this
osk 2 of 3
1-CRA-135-2007 (C).docx
Application, as prejudice is caused to the Respondent due to the casual
approach of the Applicants in not appearing before this Court.
5. In view of the absence of the Advocate for the Applicants / Applicants
and the statements made by Ms. Vaishnavi Shelar, learned Advocates for the
Respondent, coupled with the observations in the order dated 16 th September
2026, this Court has no alternative but to accept the request made by Ms.
Vaishnavi Shelar, learned Advocates for the Respondent.
6. In view of the above, Civil Revision Application No. 135 of 2007 is
dismissed for non-prosecution.
[ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]
Digitally signed
by OMKAR
SHIVAHAR
OMKAR KUMBHAKARN
SHIVAHAR
KUMBHAKARN Date:
2026.09.21
20:40:53
+0530
osk 3 of 3
Checking your session…