Bombay High Court
SAU KAMAL GANGADHAR LANDGEversusWALU RAMJI PANSARE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appeal is restored subject to the appellant paying Rs. 5,000 costs within four weeks, otherwise it remains dismissed.
Summary
The appellant, Sau Kamal Gangadhar Landge, filed an interim application seeking restoration of an appeal that had been dismissed for non‑prosecution on 16 July 2025. The appeal had been admitted on 14 January 2008, but the respondents failed to appear despite service. The High Court considered whether the appeal could be revived to allow the appellant to prosecute it on its merits, and whether the appellant should bear costs for its own negligence. The Court ordered the appeal restored, recalling the dismissal order, but conditioned the restoration on the appellant paying Rs. 5,000 to Kirtikar Law Library within four weeks. Failure to pay would cause the appeal to remain dismissed. The interim application was therefore allowed and disposed of on these terms.
Issues considered
- Can an appeal dismissed for non‑prosecution be restored?
- May the court impose costs on the appellant as a condition precedent to restoration?
Subjects
- restoration of appeal
- non‑prosecution
- costs
- interim application
- civil appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:37973
Renuka Thakur 13-IA-44-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 44 OF 2026
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO. 477 OF 2007
Sau Kamal Gangadhar Landge ...Applicant
V/s.
Walu Ramji Pansare ...Respondent
________________
Mr. A. S. Ramesan for Applicant/Appellant.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 16 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) Interim Application is filed seeking restoration of the
Appeal which is dismissed for non prosecution by order dated 16 July
2025. The Appeal appears to have been admitted on 14 January 2008. It
appears that despite being duly served, none had appeared on behalf of
the Respondents in the Appeal. With a view to afford an opportunity to
the Appellant to prosecute the Appeal on merits, an opportunity needs
to be granted by restoring the Appeal. However, for negligent conduct of
the Appellant, some costs are required to be imposed while restoring the
Appeal.
Page No.1 of 2
16 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka Thakur 13-IA-44-2026.docx
2) The Appeal is accordingly restored by recalling the order
dated 16 July 2025. The Appellant shall pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- to
Kirtikar Law Library within a period of four weeks. Payment of costs shall
be condition precedent for restoration of the Appeal. If costs are not paid
within the stipulated time, the Appeal shall continue to remain
dismissed.
3) Interim Application is allowed and disposed of in above
terms.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
Page No.2 of 2
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 16 SEPTEMBER 2026
Date: 17/09/2026 15:34:59
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.