Bombay High Court

ANIL AMARCHAND SETHI SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS 1.1 USHA A SETHIversusVIJAY RAMCHANDRA GAIKWAD

Decided: 1 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The appeal is restored subject to the applicant removing all office objections within four weeks and paying Rs.10,000 costs to the respondent.

Summary

The applicant filed an interim application seeking restoration of a second appeal that had been dismissed for failure to remove office objections. The appeal had previously been restored on the condition that the objections be removed within three weeks, a condition the applicant ignored, leading the registry to treat the appeal as dismissed again. The court considered the applicant's negligence and decided to allow the application, recalling the dismissal and restoring the appeal, but imposed two conditions: removal of all office objections within four weeks and payment of Rs.10,000 costs to the respondent. The costs are to be paid by cheque to the respondent's counsel within the stipulated time. The court warned that any breach of these conditions will result in the appeal being dismissed again with no further restoration applications entertained.

Issues considered

Whether a second appeal dismissed for non‑removal of office objections can be restored on a subsequent interim application
Whether costs may be imposed on the applicant for negligence in complying with the earlier order
What conditions, if any, should be attached to the restoration of the appeal

Subjects

restoration of appeal
office objections
costs
interim application
civil appellate jurisdiction
non‑compliance
negligence

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:35963

              Renuka                                             7-IA-6777-2026.docx


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6777 OF 2026
                                                   IN
                              SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 25229 OF 2024
              Anil Amarchand Sethi Since Deceased                 ...Applicant
              Through Legal Heirs Usha A Sethi
                                 V/s.

              Vijay Ramchandra Gaikwad                           ...Respondent
                                            ________________
              Mr. Abhishek Ithape i/b Mr. Shivaji r. Nirmale for Applicant.
              Mr. Anilkumar Patil i/b Mr. Digvijay A. Patil for Respondent No. 1-
              Plaintiff.
                                            ________________
                                                     CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                                      DATED: 1 NOVEMBER 2026.


              P.C.:


              1)            Interim Application is filed for restoration of the Second
              Appeal which is discovered for non removal of the office objections. This
              is the second time Appellants are seeking restoration of the Appeal. The
              Appeal was earlier dismissed on 19 December 2024 by order passed by
              this Court on 21 January 2026. The Appeal was restored subject to the
              condition of removal of all office objections within a period of 3 weeks. It
              was specifically directed in paragraph 5 of the order that if office
              objections were not removed within a period of 3 weeks, the order was to
              stand recalled and the Second Appeal was to be treated as dismissed

                                                Page No.1 of 2
                                             1 NOVEMBER 2026
                          Renuka                                                  7-IA-6777-2026.docx


                          without further reference to the Court. The Applicants however remained
                          negligent and failed to remove the office objections. Accordingly, the
                          Appeal is again treated by the Registry as having been dismissed. Now
                          another Application is filed for restoration of the Appeal. Considering
                          the above negligent act on the part of the Applicants, in my view, costs
                          are required to be imposed on the Applicants while restoring the Appeal.


                          2)          Accordingly, the Application is allowed by condoning the
                          delay. The order dismissing the Appeal is recalled and the Appeal is
                          restored subject to following two conditions:-


                                       (i)   The Applicant shall remove all office objections within
                                       a period of four weeks.
                                       (ii) The applicants shall pay cost of Rs. 10,000/-. to the
                                       Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff within a period of four weeks.


                          3)          The Amount of costs shall be paid by handing over cheque
                          drawn in the name of Respondent No. 1 to the counsel appearing for
                          Respondent No. 1 within the time stipulated. It is made clear that if
                          either of the conditions are violated, the Registry shall once again treat
                          the Appeal as dismissed and thereafter no Application shall be
                          entertained for restoration of the Appeal.


                          4)          Interim Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of
                          with costs as indicated above.


                                                                               [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
                                                              Page No.2 of 2
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge                        1 NOVEMBER 2026
Date: 02/09/2026 13:37:04

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…