Bombay High Court
SATISH NARAYAN SONIversusDipak Nagendra Singh
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court allowed the restoration application and condoned the delay, thereby setting aside the dismissal for non‑prosecution.
Summary
The applicant, Satish Narayan Soni, sought restoration of a leave to appeal that had been dismissed for non‑prosecution on 17‑12‑2025. The restoration application was filed 31 days late. The applicant’s counsel argued that the delay was due to the advocate’s illness, supported by medical documents. The respondent contended that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. The court examined the medical evidence and the extent of the delay, finding sufficient cause to condone the delay. Consequently, the court allowed the restoration application, condoned the delay, and disposed of the interim application.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 31 days in filing a restoration application for leave to appeal can be condoned on the ground of the advocate’s illness.
- Whether the dismissal for non‑prosecution can be set aside by allowing the restoration application.
Subjects
- interim application
- condonation of delay
- leave to appeal
- non prosecution
- medical grounds
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
52-IA-1868-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1868 OF 2026
IN
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (PVT.) NO. 2158 OF 2023
Satish Narayan Soni ...Applicant
Versus
Dipak Nagendra Singh ...Respondent
SNEHA ****
NITIN Mr. Ajit Kenjale (thru VC) for the Applicant.
CHAVAN Ms. Rashmi Tendulkar, APP for Respondent/State.
Digitally signed by
SNEHA NITIN
CHAVAN
Mr. Sandeep Mishra a/w Madhura Mulay i/b D.T. Tiwari for Respondent
Date: 2026.09.11
10:40:43 +0530
No.1.
****
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
IA/1868/2026
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application for restoration of leave application
which was dismissed for non prosecution on 17.12.2025. There is delay
of 31 days in filing the application.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that Advocate for
the Applicant was not keeping well and was therefore not in a position
to attend the Court on 17.12.2025, resulting into dismissal for non
prosecution. Medical papers are placed on record in support of the
contention.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1-
original accused submitted that delay is not properly explained.
5. Considering the extent of delay and averments in the
application, as well as medical record produced, sufficient cause is
Sneha Chavan 1
52-IA-1868-2026.doc
made out.
6. Application is allowed. Delay is condoned. Interim
Application is disposed of in above terms.
ALP/2158/2023
7. Stand over to 24.09.2026. To be listed for disposal after
urgent/circulated matters.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Sneha Chavan 2
Checking your session…