Bombay High Court

AVINASH S/O. DHARMARAJ PAWARversusDEEPALI W/O. AVINASH PAWAR

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The revision application is dismissed for want of prosecution due to the advocate's repeated absences and loss of interest.

Summary

The petitioner, Avinash Pawar, filed a criminal revision application against his wife, Deepali Pawar. The trial court had earlier dismissed the matter for want of prosecution because the petitioner's advocate was repeatedly absent. The High Court restored the case to give the advocate another chance, with an undertaking that there would be no further lapses. However, the advocate again sought multiple adjournments and was absent on 4 April 2025, indicating loss of interest. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision application for want of prosecution, while leaving open the possibility of restoration if a fresh application is filed.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate procedural response when an advocate repeatedly fails to appear, leading to a lapse in prosecution?
Whether the revision application should be dismissed for want of prosecution despite a prior order of restoration.

Subjects

procedural law
want of prosecution
criminal revision
advocate's absence
restoration of proceedings

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38151




                                                -1-

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      941 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 211 OF 2017

                                 AVINASH S/O. DHARMARAJ PAWAR
                                            VERSUS
                                  DEEPALI W/O. AVINASH PAWAR


                                  ( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )

                                     DATE : 21st AUGUST, 2026

              PER COURT :


              1.             This Court, vide order dated 26.03.2019,   has observed

              that the learned Advocate for the Applicant was absent on various

              occasions and on the said date, since nobody had appeared, the matter

              was dismissed for want of prosecution. Therefore, the learned Advocate

              for the Applicant sought review of the order dated 26.03.2019.



              2.             This Court, on 29.11.2019 has observed that in order to

              give one more opportunity to the learned Advocate for the Applicant for

              substantial justice into the matter, the matter came to be restored.

              However, the learned Advocate for the Applicant has given undertaking

              that henceforth there would not be any lapse on his part into the



              khs/Aug.2026/211
                                    -2-

matter.      Thereafter, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, on

08.01.2020, 12.02.2020, 09.03.2020 and 04.04.2025, virtually sought

time on the ground of having personal difficulty.     On 04.04.2025, the

learned Advocate for the Applicant was absent.



3.             In that view of the matter, it is clearly revealed that the

learned Advocate for the Applicant as well as the Applicant has lost

interest in the matter.      As such, the Revision Application stands

dismissed for want of prosecution.



4.             However, if the learned Advocate for the Applicant will

again file an application for restoration of this matter, the reference of

today’s order be taken into account.




                                          ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)




khs/Aug.2026/211

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…