Bombay High Court

GANGADHAR BANDU SANAP AND ANRversusVALMIK ANANDA SANAP SINCE DECEASED

Decided: 22 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that the second appeal should be restored to allow the parties to prosecute it on merits.

Summary

The applicants filed an interim application seeking restoration of a second appeal that had been dismissed because the office objections were not removed. The respondent's counsel did not oppose the application. The court considered the averments made and decided to give the appellants an opportunity to prosecute the appeal on its merits. Consequently, the court ordered the second appeal to be restored. The interim application was thereafter disposed.

Issues considered

Whether a second appeal dismissed for non‑removal of office objections can be restored through an interim application

Subjects

restoration of appeal
interim application
procedural objections
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Bombay High Court

Judgment

Renuka Thakur                                             9-IA-5613-2026.docx


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5613 OF 2026
                                        IN
                   SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 32001 OF 2025
Gangadhar Bandu Sanap and Anr.                       ...Applicants
                      V/s.

Valmik Ananda Sanap Since Deceased                   ...Respondent
                           ________________
Mr. Rahul D. Motkari for Applicants
Mr. Jayendra Khairnar for Respondent.
                                 ________________
                                         CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                          DATED: 22 SEPTEMBER 2026.


P.C.:


1)               Interim Application is filed for restoration of the Second
Appeal which is dismissed due to non-removal of office objections.


2)               Mr. Khairnar, the learned counsel appearing for contesting
Respondent fairly does not opposed the Application.


3)               In view of averments made in the Application and with a
view to provide an opportunity to the Appellants to prosecute the Appeal
on merits, I deem it appropriate to restore the Appeal.




                                    Page No.1 of 2
                                 22 SEPTEMBER 2026
                          Renuka Thakur                                                9-IA-5613-2026.docx


                          4)              Second Appeal is accordingly restored.


                          5)              Interim Application is disposed of.


                                                                               [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
                                                              Page No.2 of 2
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge                        22 SEPTEMBER 2026
Date: 23/09/2026 11:46:11

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.