Bombay High Court
SAYAJI DNYANDEO LONDHE AND ORSversusSHRI. SATISH RAGHUNATH LONDHE AND ORS
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- M M SATHAYE
Holding
A civil revision application that is not prosecuted and for which the applicant fails to appear may be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
The applicants filed a civil revision challenging an order dated 15 March 2012 issued under section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906, which had been allowed in favour of the respondents. The revision was previously rejected by the Sub‑Divisional Officer on 30 November 2015, confirming the respondents' order. In the present hearing, the applicants neither appeared nor presented any arguments, and no interim relief was sought. The court observed that the applicants appeared disinterested and, after giving them a final opportunity to appear on 12 February 2026, dismissed the revision for want of prosecution. Consequently, the order favouring the respondents stands.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate procedure for a civil revision under section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906 when the revisionist fails to prosecute the application?
Legislation cited
- Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906 — s. 5
Subjects
- civil revision
- procedural default
- want of prosecution
- Mamlatdar’s Court Act
- court dismissal
Judgment
8-CRA-174-2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.174 OF 2016
Sayaji Dnyandeo Londhe and others ...Applicants
versus
Satish Raghunath Londhe and others ...Respondents
***
None for the Applicants.
***
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J
DATE : 12th FEBRUARY, 2026
Digitally P.C:
signed by
SHAILAJA
SHAILAJA SHRIKANT
SHRIKANT HALKUDE 1. On 05.02.2026, following order was passed;
HALKUDE Date:
2026.02.13
11:16:14
+0530
“1. None for the Revision applicants.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to
10 points out that Revision Application is arising out of the
proceedings under section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906. He
pointed out that by order dated 15.03.2012, the application filed by
the Respondents was allowed, thereby making available the subject
matter road. He further points out that this order was challenged by
present Revision Applicants by filing a Revision before Sub-
Divisional Officer, Madha Division, Kurduwadi and by order dated
30.11.2015, the said Revision is rejected, thereby confirming the
order in favour of the Respondents. He submits that the impugned
order is executed long ago.
3. Perusal of the record indicates that present Civil Revision
Application is never argued on merits and, either nobody has
appeared for the Applicants or request for adjournment has been
made. There is no interim relief granted in favour of the applicants.
Shailaja 1
8-CRA-174-2016.doc
4. In these circumstances, it appears that the Revision-Applicants
are not interested in proceeding with the matter.
5. Even then, as a final opportunity to the Applicants to appear
and proceed with the matter, list the matter on 12 th February, 2026.
To be listed under the caption ‘for Dismissal’.
3. Today, the matter is listed for dismissal. Nobody is appearing for
the Applicants.
4. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed for want of
prosecution.
[M.M. SATHAYE, J.]
Shailaja 2
Checking your session…