Bombay High Court

MALTI HANUMANT KHAMKAR AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 24 March 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: ASHWIN D BHOBE

Holding

The Court held that the dismissal order dated 01‑09‑2023 is recalled and the criminal writ petition is restored because the procedural lapse was due to the petitioner's advocate and the respondent did not object.

Summary

The petitioners, Smt. Malti Hanumant Khamkar & Ors., filed an interim application seeking recall of an order dated 01‑09‑2023 that dismissed their criminal writ petition for failure to remove office objections and supply a spare copy. The dismissal was predicated on non‑compliance with the court’s procedural directions, which the petitioners attributed to an inadvertent mistake by their own advocate’s office. The State of Maharashtra, as respondent, did not oppose the recall, acknowledging the advocate’s responsibility for the lapse. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents that parties should not suffer for an advocate’s default, the Court considered whether the dismissal order could be set aside. The Court concluded that, given the respondent’s consent and the petitioners’ undertaking to rectify the deficiencies within four weeks, the dismissal order should be recalled and the writ petition restored. Consequently, the interim application was allowed, the order of dismissal was recalled, and the petition was reinstated pending compliance.

Issues considered

Whether a dismissal order for procedural non‑compliance can be recalled when the default is attributable to the petitioner's advocate.
Whether the respondent’s lack of objection permits the court to restore the dismissed petition.

Subjects

interim relief
procedural compliance
advocate's default
recall of dismissal order
criminal writ petition
court discretion

Judgment

Gitalaxmi 903-IA-4265-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4265 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 173 OF 2025

Smt. Malti Hanumant Khamkar & Ors. ...Applicants/
Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
__________

Ms. Jagruti Nimbalkar i/b Mr. Suaraj B. Chakor, learned Advocate for
the Applicants/Petitioners.

Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent.
__________

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 24th MARCH 2026.

P.C. :

1. Heard Ms. Jagruti Nimbalkar, learned Advocate for the
Applicants/Petitioners and Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned A.P.P. for
the State/Respondent.

2. By the present Interim Application, the Applicants have
sought for the following substantive relief in terms of prayer clause
8(a) :-

“a. The present Interim Application be allowed and this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to recall the order dated 01.09.2023
passed by this Hon’ble Court, whereby Criminal Writ Petition
(St.) No. 12433/2023 was dismissed for failure to supply
spare copies of the petition in the Registry and to remove all

Page 1 of 4
Gitalaxmi 903-IA-4265-2024.doc

office objections.”

3. Criminal Writ Petition No. 173 of 2025 was dismissed for
non-compliance of the order dated 01.09.2023, passed by this
Court, which reads as follows :-

“1. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 27 th
October, 2023.

2. Learned APP waives service for respondent no. 1.

3. In the meantime, all office objections if not removed,
so also, copies are not supplied for effecting service on the
respondents, the petition shall stand dismissed without
further reference to the Court.”

4. Ms. Jagruti Nimbalkar, learned Advocate for the Applicants
states that on account of inadvertent mistake on the part of office
of the Advocate representing the Petitioners, the objections
remained to be removed and the spare copy remained to be
supplied to the Registry for issuance of notice to the Respondents.
She submits that on account of the lapse on the part of office of the
Advocate representing Petitioners, the Petitioners should not be
denied of an opportunity of hearing of the Petition. She therefore
requests that the proceedings be restored and the same be heard on
merits. She refers and relies on the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and the High Court in the cases of Ashok Kumar
v/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1, Firm Jehtmal & Sons, through
its Proprietor-Jethamal v/s. State of Rajasthan2 and Ajeet Singh
Rathore S/o. Shri. Raju Singh Rathore v/s. State of Rajasthan and

1. Civil Appeal No. 4758 of 2023 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 25256 of 2018.
2. 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3346.
Page 2 of 4
Gitalaxmi 903-IA-4265-2024.doc

Others3, in support of her contention that for the fault of an
Advocate, the parties should not suffer.

5. Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent
submits that as the Advocate for Petitioners has owned the
responsibility for non-compliance of the objections/supply of the
spare copy as per the order dated 01.09.2023, she does not object
to the recall of the order dated 01.09.2023 and to the restoration
of Criminal Writ Petition No. 173 of 2025.

6. For the reasons stated in the Interim Application, the
statement made today by Ms. Jagruti Nimbalkar, learned Advocate
for the Applicants that the lapse in compliance of the order dated
01.09.2023 was on her part and the No Objection by Ms. Pallavi
Dabholkar, learned A.P.P., a case is made out by the Applicants for
indulgence. In view of the above, the dismissal order dated
01.09.2023 is recalled and Criminal Writ Petition No. 173 of 2025
is restored to its original file.

7. Ms. Jagruti Nimbalkar, learned Advocate for the Applicants
states that all the objections notified or that may be notified in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 173 of 2025, would be removed/cleared
within a period of 4 weeks from today. She submits that upon
removal of the objections, spare copy would be furnished to the
Registry of this Court forthwith. Statement made by Ms. Jagruti
Nimbalkar is accepted.

8. It is made clear that in the event the Petitioners fail to comply
with the statements made hereinabove, Criminal Writ Petition No.
3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18308/2024 decided on 25.011.2024.
Page 3 of 4
Gitalaxmi 903-IA-4265-2024.doc

173 of 2025 shall be dismissed without reference to this Court.

9. In view of the above, Interim Application No. 4265 of 2024 is
allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

[ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.]

Digitally signed
by GITALAXMI
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2026.03.30
20:11:03 +0530

Page 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…