Bombay High Court

M/S. INDUMATI GANGARAM JATHAR AND ANR.versusSIR JAMSHETJEE JEJEEBHOY AND ORS.

Decided: 23 September 2026
Disposal: Dissmiss For Default/Non-Prosecution

Holding

The civil revision application is dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The applicants, M/s. Indumati Gangaram Jathar and Anr., failed to appear before the High Court despite being served notice in a civil revision application. The respondents, Sir Jamshetjee Jejeebhoy and others, indicated that a concurrent judgment and decree for eviction in their favour existed, but it could not be executed because the revision application was pending. The court noted that the earlier advocate had returned the paper without objection, prompting the issuance of notice. Since the applicants did not appear, the court dismissed the civil revision application on the ground of non‑prosecution. No further orders were made.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate disposition of a civil revision application when the applicants fail to appear despite being served notice?

Subjects

civil procedure
revision
non‑prosecution
eviction decree
notice

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:38903

                                                            29-CRA-14-2020.docx


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 14 OF 2020
   Swapnil
               M/s. Indumati Gangaram Jathar and Anr.       …Applicants
                    Vs.
               Sir Jamshetjee Jejeebhoy and Ors.            …Respondents


               None for the applicants.
               Mr. Pervez M. Rustomkhan for the respondents.

                                      CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                      DATE :       23rd SEPTEMBER 2026

               ORDER :


               1.    None appears for the applicants.


               2.    Since the earlier advocate had submitted before the

               court that he has returned the paper with no objection, this

               court had issued notice to the applicants.


               3.    Office remark shows that notice to the applicants is

               served.


               4.    Learned counsel appearing for the respondents

               submits that there is a concurrent judgment and decree for

               eviction in favour of the respondents. However, the same

               could not be executed in view of pendency of this civil


                                             1/2
                                                29-CRA-14-2020.docx


revision application.


5.    Since none appears for the applicants though served,

the civil revision application is dismissed for non-prosecution.




                                          [GAURI GODSE, J.]




                               2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Pervez M Rustomkhan