Bombay High Court

NIRANJAN CHUNILAL SHAHversusAMARJIT SINGH BHATIA AND ANR.

Decided: 16 September 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

An appeal dismissed for default may be restored if the appellant takes the requisite steps; otherwise the dismissal stands.

Summary

The appellant, Shri Niranjan Chunilal Shah, filed a first appeal (No. 855 of 2006) against Amarjit Singh Bhatia and another respondent. The matter was adjourned multiple times due to non‑appearance of parties and the illness of counsel. On 24 August 2026 the appeal was dismissed for default, but was later adjourned to allow the appellant to take instructions. On the date of hearing, no parties appeared and the court reiterated the dismissal for default. The judge indicated that if the appellant takes steps for restoration, the matter will be decided on its merits, and ordered a refund of court fees as per the Rules.

Issues considered

Whether an appeal dismissed for default can be restored upon application by the appellant
Whether court fees are refundable after dismissal for default

Subjects

default dismissal
restoration of appeal
court fees refund
civil procedure

Judgment

                                                                                            5-FA-855-2006.doc


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                                 FIRST APPEAL NO.855 OF 2006
           Digitally signed
           by SATISH
           RAMCHANDRA
SATISH     SANGAR
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR     Date:
           2026.09.17
           15:08:18
                              Shri Niranjan Chunilal Shah                                ...Appellant
           +0530


                                     V/s.
                              Amarjit Singh Bhatia and Anr.                              ...Respondents
                                                                  *****

                              No one is present:-                        On behalf of the Appellant.
                              No one is present:-                        On behalf of the Respondents.

                                                             *****
                                                        CORAM :              S. M. MODAK, J.
                                                        DATE         :       16th SEPTEMBER 2026
                              P. C. :-

                              1.     On 10th August 2026, no one had appeared and hence, the

                              matter was adjourned for dismissal on 24 th August 2026. On that date,

                              it was dismissed. However, on the basis of submissions made later on

                              on the same date, it was not dismissed but adjourned for taking

                              instructions as learned Advocate Mr.R.R.Salvi was suffering from some

                              ailment.

                              2.     Today, no one is present. This is an Appeal by the Claimant for

                              enhancement. Dismissed for Default.

                              3.     If steps are taken for restoration, it will be decided on merits.

                              Satish Sangar                                                                1/2
                                                        5-FA-855-2006.doc


4.     Refund of Court fees as per the Rules.



                                    [S. M. MODAK, J.]




Satish Sangar                                                          2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…