Bombay High Court
RAVIRAJ SHRIRAM PAWARversusSHRADDHA RAVIRAJ PAWAR
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that there was no reason to recall the ex‑parte order and dismissed the interim application.
Summary
The Applicant filed an interim application seeking recall of an ex‑parte order dated 17‑04‑2026 and restoration of Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 374 of 2025 for a merits hearing, alleging that his advocate’s absence was a bona‑fide mistake. The Court examined the claim and also considered a request to transfer Marriage Petition No. 134 of 2024 from Tuljapur to Karmala due to the Respondent’s unemployment and financial hardship. While the Court acknowledged the Respondent’s inconvenience, it found no sufficient ground to set aside the ex‑parte order. Consequently, the Court declined to recall the order and ordered the transfer of the marriage petition to the Karmala court. The interim application was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the ex‑parte order dated 17‑04‑2026 should be recalled and the case restored for a merits hearing.
- Whether Marriage Petition No. 134 of 2024 should be transferred to another court on the ground of inconvenience to the Respondent.
Subjects
- ex‑parte order
- interim application
- recall of order
- transfer of suit
- inconvenience
- civil procedure
- marriage petition
Judgment
17-IA-813-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 813 OF 2026
IN
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 374 OF 2025
Raviraj Shriram Pawar … Applicant
Versus.
Shraddha Raviraj Pawar … Respondent
-----
Mr. Someshwar Wale (through VC) a/w Mr. Jagdish Garud, Advocate
for the Applicant.
Ms. Bhagyashri Mangale, for the Respondent.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 21st August, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr. Mr. Someshwar Wale, learned Advocate for the
Applicant and Ms. Bhagyashri Mangale, learned Advocate for the
Respondent.
2. By the present Application, the Applicant has sought the
following substantive relief in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) :-
(a) Be pleased to recall and set aside the Ex-Parte
Order dated 17-04-2026 passed in Miscellaneous Civil
Application No. 374 of 2025;
Arjun 1
17-IA-813-2026.doc
(b) Be pleased to restore Miscellaneous Civil
Application No. 374 of 2025 to its original file and
number on the board of this Hon’ble Court and direct
that the same be heard and decided on merits after
affording both the parties an opportunity of being
heard;
3. Mr. Someshwar Wale, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
submits that he was not present before this Court on 17.04.2026, when
Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 374 of 2025 was heard, due to a
bonafide mistake on his part, as a result of which the Original
Respondent (Raviraj Shriram Pawar) in Miscellaneous Civil Application
No. 374 of 2025 was not represented. He therefore seeks the recall of
the order to afford an opportunity to place the stand of the Applicant
herein on record.
4. In view of the submission made by Mr. Someshwar Wale, learned
Advocate for the Applicant, that it was a mistake on his part (personal
to the Advocate), he was afforded an opportunity in this Interim
Application to address the Court as to why the Marriage Petition No.
134 of 2024, filed by the Applicant before the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, at Tuljapur, should not be transferred to the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Karmala, District Solapur.
Arjun 2
17-IA-813-2026.doc
5. Mr. Someshwar Wale, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
submits that the Respondent, though qualified, has chosen to remain
unemployed. He further submits that the Applicant can appear through
VC, thereby reducing the inconvenience claimed by the Applicant in this
Application.
6. Ms. Bhagyashri Mangale, learned Advocate for the Respondent
(Original Applicant in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 374 of 2025),
states that the Respondent is unemployed and that travelling to
Tuljapur is causing severe inconvenience to the Respondent, particularly
in view of the financial crisis.
7. The fact that the Respondent is not employed is not in dispute.
Further, Mr. Someshwar Wale, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
states that the Applicant is employed.
8. Considering the above-said facts, the inconvenience that would
be caused to the Respondent is greater than the inconvenience that may
be caused to the Applicant. Accordingly, the Marriage Petition No. 134
of 2024 filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Tuljapur, is
required to be transferred to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Karmala,
District Solapur.
Arjun 3
17-IA-813-2026.doc
9. In view of the above, the request made by the Respondent
(Original Applicant in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 374 of 2025)
is justified. Consequently, I do not find any reason to recall the order
dated 17.04.2026.
10. Ms. Bhagyashri Mangale, learned Advocate for the Respondent
and Mr. Someshwar Wale, learned Advocate for the Applicant, now
inform the Court that after the order dated 17.04.2026 passed by this
Court, the Marriage Petition No. 134 of 2024 has been transferred from
the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Tuljapur, to the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Karmala, District Solapur and that the parties are appearing
before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Karmala, District Solapur.
11. In view of the above, Interim Application No. 813 of 2026 is
disposed of.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
ARJUN KRISHNA
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE Date:
2026.08.31
10:39:28
+0530
Arjun 4
Checking your session…