Bombay High Court

SHIVBALA ALIAS APPASAHEB SIDDHGONDA PATILversusSENIOR INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the writ petition may be restored without serving notice to the absent respondent, as the application was filed within time and the relief sought was innocuous.

Summary

Shivbala filed Writ Petition No.103 of 2026 which was dismissed for default because no notice was served to Respondent No.2. The applicant subsequently filed an interim application seeking restoration of the original writ petition, arguing that the application was filed within time and the relief sought was innocuous. The Court examined the record and noted that Respondent No.2 had not been present before the Court in the original petition, and therefore notice to him was not required. Finding the applicant’s application timely and the prayers harmless, the Court allowed the interim application. Consequently, the writ petition was restored to its original number and the matter was stood over to 4 September 2026.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition dismissed for default can be restored when notice to a respondent was not served
Whether notice to a respondent who was not present in the original proceedings is required for restoration

Subjects

restoration of writ
default dismissal
notice requirement
interim application
criminal appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                                18-IA-512-2026 (CR).odt




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 512 OF 2026
                                 IN
                  CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 103 OF 2026

Shivbala Alias Appasaheb Siddhgonda Patil                .....Applicant
      VERSUS
Senior Inspector of Police and Another             .....Respondents

                                      ...
Mr. P. P. Pujari, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Pankaj P. Deokar, APP for Respondent-State.
                                      ...


                                 CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
                                 DATE  : AUGUST 28, 2026
PER COURT :

1.       The Applicant has moved this Application seeking restoration of the

original Writ Petition No.103 of 2026 to its original file, as the same was

dismissed for default.

2.       On perusal of the record, it appears that no notice was issued to

Respondent No. 2 in the original Writ Petition and only the learned APP

appeared for Respondent No.1-State.

3.       Moreover, it appears that the Applicant has filed this Application

within time and the prayers made therein are innocuous. Therefore, notice to

Respondent No. 2 is not required, as he was not present before this Court in

the original Writ Petition.
Suresh                                                                     Page 1 of 2
                                                                18-IA-512-2026 (CR).odt



4.       Having considered the above and the reasons disclosed in the

Application, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and

(b). The Writ Petition be restored to its original number.

5.       Writ Petition No.103 of 2026 stand over to 4th September 2026.




                                                   (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)




Suresh                                                                     Page 2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…