Bombay High Court
VISHAL PRADEEP SHARMAversusKISHORE BALDEV AHUJA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court condoned the delay and recalled the dismissal, thereby restoring the writ petition.
Summary
Vishal Pradeep Sharma filed Writ Petition No. 3572 of 2024 which was dismissed on 15 January 2025 for want of prosecution. He subsequently filed Interim Application No. 6186 of 2026 seeking condonation of a 64‑day delay and restoration of the dismissed petition. No written opposition was filed, and although the respondent opposed orally, he did not dispute the established Supreme Court principles on condonation of delay. The Court, after reviewing the memo, found the delay not gross and the applicant’s justification sufficient, noting that the dismissal resulted from his advocate’s inadvertence and that the applicant has a meritorious case. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay, recalled the dismissal order, and restored the writ petition to the original file. The interim application was allowed and disposed of without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 64 days in filing an application for condonation of delay can be condoned.
- Whether a dismissal for want of prosecution can be recalled and the writ petition restored.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- dismissal for want of prosecution
- writ petition restoration
- interest of justice
- civil appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
907-IA-6186-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6186 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3572 OF 2024
Vishal Pradeep Sharma ...Applicant(s)
Versus
Kishore Baldev Ahuja ...Respondent(s)
______
Mr. Sujit Upadhyay i/b Adv. T. J. Sodhi, for the Applicant.
Adv. P.R. Rathod with Mr. Yogesh Rathod, for the Respondent.
_______
CORAM: AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE: 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on this Interim Application which
is filed praying for condonation of delay and for restoration of Writ Petition No.
3572 of 2024 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 15 th January, 2025.
The delay which is sought to be condoned is of 64 days.
2. There is no written opposition filed to this Application. Mr. P.R.
Rathod, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent although has
orally opposed this Application vehemently, he would not dispute the well settled
position in law in a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court in regard to the
principles to be followed on condonation of the delay and more particularly he
would not dispute that, in the clear facts and circumstances of the case, as set out in
Page 1 of 2
Tiwari
907-IA-6186-2026.DOC
the memo of the Application, the Applicant ought not to suffer or be rendered
remediless in pursuing the Writ Petition.
3. In the aforesaid circumstances, having perused the memo of the Application
and considering the period of delay not being very gross, in my opinion, the
reasons as set out certainly provide for an appropriate justification and a sufficient
cause shown by the Applicant in regard to the delay in filing the Application. It is
hence in the interest of justice that the delay is condoned.
4. Further the reasons set out for dismissal of Petition also show that the
Applicant on account of inadvertence of his advocate remained unrepresented on
the said date. The Applicant submits that he has a good case on merits and the
dismissal of the Petition for want of prosecution would prejudice him. In the
interest of justice and considering the reason as set out, this Court is of the view
that the order of dismissal be recalled and the Writ Petition be restored to in the
original file.
5. The Interim Application is hence allowed in terms of prayer clause (A) and
(C).
6. Interim application stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Tiwari
Checking your session…