Bombay High Court
KEWAL KUMAR AHUJAversusDIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR,CO-OP SOCIETIES, MUMBAI DIVISION AND 6 ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court condoned the delay and set aside the dismissal, restoring the writ petition to the file.
Summary
The applicant, an 81‑year‑old senior citizen, sought condonation of a 275‑day delay in filing an application to set aside the dismissal of his writ petition for want of prosecution. The petition had been dismissed on 11 August 2025 because the petitioner, suffering from ailments, could not pursue the case. The applicant’s counsel submitted medical evidence to justify the delay. The court, after hearing both sides, found the reasons sufficient to advance substantive justice. It therefore condoned the delay, set aside the dismissal order, and restored the writ petition to the file. The interim application was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 275 days in filing an application for condonation of delay can be condoned?
- Whether the order dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution should be set aside and the petition restored?
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- want of prosecution
- writ petition
- senior citizen
- substantive justice
Judgment
910-IA--4600-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4600 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 399 OF 2023
Kewal Kumar Ahuja ..Applicant
Versus
Divisional Joint Registrar Coop Societies, …Respondents
Mumbai Division and Ors
Mr. Ashish U Mishra, with Vishnudutt Mishra and Tushar Amberkar,
for the Applicant/Petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Jadhav, Addl GP, for Respondent Nos. 1 & 6.
Adv Nishtha Garg, i/b Kartik Garg, for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER 2026
ORDER:
SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4600 OF 2026:
Digitally signed
by SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE
Date:
2026.09.30
21:54:05 +0530
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This is an Application for condonation of delay of 275 days in
taking out the Application to set aside the order dated 11 th August 2025,
whereby the Writ Petition No. 399 of 2023, came to be dismissed, for
want of prosecution and also to restore the said Writ Petition to file.
3. Mr. Ashish Mishra, the learned Counsel for the Applicant
submitted that as the Petitioner is a senior citizen and was suffering
ARS 1/2
910-IA--4600-2026.DOC
from ailments, the Petitioner could not follow-up the proceeding with
the concerned Advocate and, thus, the Petition came to be dismissed for
want of prosecution.
4. Ms. Nishtha Garg, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to
5, resisted the submissions on behalf of the Applicant.
5. It seems that the Petitioner is 81 years of age. Few documents
have been filed to substantiate the claim of the Petitioner that he has
been suffering from various ailments.
6. For the reasons assigned in the Application and to advance the
cause of substantive justice, the delay in filing the Application stands
condoned and the order dated 11 th August 2025, dismissing the Petition
for want of prosecution stands set aside.
7. The Petition stands restored to file.
8. Application disposed.
WRIT PETITION NO. 399 OF 2023:
9. Petition be listed for admission.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
ARS 2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.