Bombay High Court
ISHWAR VASTU VIKAS DEVELOPERversusTHE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER THANE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the delay was sufficiently explained and therefore condoned, resulting in the restoration of the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Ishwar Vastu Vikas Developer, filed an interim application seeking restoration of a writ petition that had been dismissed because office objections were not removed. The dismissal was ordered on 26 November 2025 by the Registrar. The petitioner explained that the delay was due to the renovation of the advocate’s office, which forced a temporary relocation. The Court examined the explanation, found sufficient cause, and condoned the delay. It directed the petitioner’s counsel to remove any remaining objections within two weeks of the order and ordered the petition to be restored to the Court’s file. The interim application was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in removing office objections can be condoned on the ground of exceptional circumstances
- Whether the dismissed petition can be restored to the Court’s file
Subjects
- interim application
- petition restoration
- office objections
- condonation of delay
- civil procedure
Judgment
15-IA-5259-2026 (C).DOC
Digitally signed
by PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
PALLAVI WARGAONKAR
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR Date:
2026.08.01
11:03:09
+0530
Pallavi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5259 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 30983 OF 2025
Ishwar Vastu Vikas Developer …Applicant
Versus
The Municipal Commissioner Thane Municipal …Respondents
Corporation And Ors.
Mr Sarthak Utangale, a/w Apurva Damle i/b. Rohan Sawant for
the Applicant.
CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATED: 31st JULY 2026.
Order (Per : Advait M. Sethna, J.) :-
1. This Interim Application is filed seeking restoration of the
Petition which was dismissed by an order dated 26 th November
2025 passed by the Registrar (Judicial-I) of this Court, on the
ground of non-removal of the office objections in the said
proceedings.
2. The Applicant/Petitioner has submitted that such delay
caused for non-removal of the said objections was not
intentional/deliberate. It was caused by exceptional circumstances
being that the office premises of the Applicant’s Advocate was
undergoing renovation during the relevant period necessitating a
Page 1 of 2
15-IA-5259-2026 (C).DOC
temporary relocation to alternate office premises. Such averments
have been set out in paragraph 3 of the Interim Application.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant.
Perused the averments in the Interim Application.
4. In our view, sufficient cause has been shown to condone the
delay for non-removal of office objections leading to the order
dated 26th November 2025.
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that if
there are any further objections, the same would be removed
within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this
order. Such statement is accepted.
6. Subject to the Applicant/Petitioner complying with the
above, the Petition to be restored to the file of this Court.
7. Interim Application is Disposed Of in the above terms.
(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
{
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…