Bombay High Court
MADHUKAR VASUDEV SOMANversusMANGALA DATTATRAY SALVI AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The revision application is dismissed for non‑prosecution.
Summary
The applicant, Madhukar Vasudev Soman, filed a civil revision seeking to quash a judgment and decree from a 2010 appeal and a 2002 suit. On the hearing date, neither the applicant nor his counsel appeared, while the respondent's counsel, Sumit Kothari, was present. The respondent informed the court that the matter had been settled between the landlord and tenants, and the applicant had lost interest. The court, noting the applicant's non‑appearance and the alleged settlement, dismissed the revision application for non‑prosecution. No substantive merits of the original judgments were examined.
Issues considered
- Whether the civil revision application should be entertained in view of the applicant's non‑appearance and alleged settlement of the dispute.
Subjects
- civil revision
- non‑prosecution
- settlement
- court dismissal
- procedural default
Judgment
31-CRA-404-2010.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 404 OF 2010
Madhukar Vasudev Soman ...Applicant
Versus
Mangala Dattatray Salvi And Others ...Respondents
__________________________________________________________
None for the Applicant.
Mr. Sumit Kothari, Advocate for the Respondents.
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 24th September, 2026.
P.C. :
1. By the present Application, the Applicant has sought for the
following substantive relief in terms of prayer clause (c) :-
c. After examining the legality, and propriety of
the Judgement and Decree passed by the Ld. District
Judge-1, Khed in Regular Civil Appeal No.99/2003 dated
22.02.2010, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set
aside the same and be pleased to dismiss the Regular Civil
Appeal No.99/2003 filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3
herein and Judgement and Decree passed by the Ld. Civil
Judge Junior Division, Khed in Regular Civil Suit No.48 of
1985 dated 03.04.2002 may kindly be confirmed/upheld.
2. On 19.08.2026, the following order was passed :-
1. This Revision Application is of the year 2010.
2. When the matter was called out, neither the
Applicant nor the Advocate for the Applicant is present,
either physically or through video conferencing mode.
3. Mr. Sumit Kothari, learned Advocate for the
Respondents is present.
4. To afford an opportunity to the
Arjun 1
31-CRA-404-2010.doc
Applicant/Advocate for the Applicant to appear, as a
matter of indulgence, list the matter on 24th September
2026 under the caption "For Dismissal”.
3. Today, name of the Applicant was called out by the Shirestedar.
Neither the Applicant (Madhukar Vasudev Soman) nor the Advocate on
record for the Applicant (Surel Shah) are present in Court, either
physically or through VC mode.
4. Mr. Sumit Kothari, learned Advocate for the Respondents, on
instructions from the Respondents submit that the subject matter of this
Application is settled amongst the Applicant (Landlord) and the
Respondents (Tenants).
5. Apparently, in view of the settlement, the Applicant has lost
interest in these proceedings.
6. In the wake of the above, Civil Revision Application No. 404 of
2010, is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
ARJUN KRISHNA
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE Date:
2026.09.29
10:36:00
+0530
Arjun 2
Checking your session…