Bombay High Court
KISANRAO DHAVJI RATHODversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court set aside the district court's order, restored the dismissed appeal, and imposed costs on the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner Kisanrao Dhavji Rathod filed a writ petition challenging a district court order that dismissed his application to restore a civil appeal dismissed for default. He sought restoration of Misc. Civil Appeal No.290 of 2013 and condonation of a 150‑day delay, citing business travel and summer vacation as reasons for the delay. The High Court observed that the district court had not recorded any reasons for rejecting the application and had failed to assess the justification offered. Consequently, the Court set aside the district court order, restored the appeal, and ordered the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000 costs to the Legal Services Authority. The writ petition was allowed and disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the district court erred in rejecting the application for restoration of a dismissed appeal without recording reasons.
- Whether the 150‑day delay in filing the restoration application can be condoned based on the petitioner's explanation.
- Whether costs may be imposed on the petitioner for negligent conduct.
Subjects
- restoration of appeal
- condonation of delay
- costs order
- civil procedure
- default dismissal
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:40177
Megha 21_wp_11113_2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11113 OF 2018
Kisanrao Dhavji Rathod ...Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Ms. Shrushti Kale with Ms. Samiksha Lokhande i/b. Ms. Manjiri Parasnis
for the Petitioner.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 30 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) By this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged order dated 2
March 2017 passed by the learned District Judge-10, Pune, rejecting Civil
Misc. Application No.20 of 2016, by which the Petitioner had prayed for
restoration of Misc. Civil Appeal No.290 of 2013, which was dismissed for
default on 10 June 2015. There was also delay of 150 days in filing Civil
Misc. Application No.20 of 2016 and condonation thereof was also
sought in the same Application.
2) I have heard Ms. Kale, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and considered the submissions canvassed by her. Office
Page No.1 of 3
30 September 2026
Megha 21_wp_11113_2018
report indicates that the Respondents are duly served. However, none
has appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
3) Perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Court would
indicate that it has failed to record even a single reason for dismissing
the Application for restoration and for condonation of delay. Beyond
recording ratio of three judgments of the Apex Court and of this Court,
the District Court has not independently assessed as to whether a
reasonable cause was made out in the Application for non-appearance
on 10 June 2011 when Misc. Civil Appeal No.290 of 2013 was dismissed
for default. I have gone through the Civil Misc. Application No.20 of
2016, in which following explanation was pleaded:-
२. सदरील अर्जदार मूळ अपिलदार हे त्यांचे व्यवसायनिमित्त व सामाजिक
कामानिमित्त सन्त बाहेर गावी जावे लागत असल्यामुळे व वेळोवेळी बाहेर गावी
व्यवसायानिमित्त न गेल्यास अर्जदार यांचे व्यवसायामध्ये नुकसान शक्यता नाकारता येत
नाही म्हणून अर्जदार यांना वेळेवर वकिलांशी भेटता आले नाही तसेच सदरील अर्जामध्ये
उन्हाळी सुट्टीच्या शेवटच्या दिवशी अर्जदार यांचे अपील ऑर्डर साठी होते व तद नंतर
उन्हाळी सुट्टी सुरु झाल्यामुळे अर्जदार यांना साक्षांकित प्रति काढण्यासाठी अर्जदार
बाहेरगावी असल्यामुळे व कोर्ट काम बंद असल्यामुळे अर्जदार यांना त्यांचे वकिलांना योग्य
वेळी भेटता आले नसल्यामुळे अर्जदार यांना मे. जिल्हा न्यायाधीश न्यायालय यांचेसमोर
अपील पुन्हा फैलावर घेण्याचा विनंती अर्ज दाखल करण्यास अर्जदार यांस १५० दिवसाचा
उशीर झाला आहे.
4) The District Court has failed to apply its mind to the above
justification and has proceeded to casually reject Civil Misc. Application
No.20 of 2016. In my view, looking into the justification pleaded in the
restoration application, the District Court ought to have provided an
opportunity to prosecute the Appeal on merits. At the same time for
negligent conduct exhibited by the Petitioner, some costs are required to
be imposed on the Petitioner.
Page No.2 of 3
30 September 2026
Megha 21_wp_11113_2018
5) I accordingly, proceed to pass the following order:-
(i) Order dated 2 March 2017 passed in Civil Misc.
Application No.20 of 2016 is set aside and the
application is made absolute in terms of prayers made
therein.
(ii) Accordingly Misc. Civil Appeal No.290 of 2013 is
restored.
(iii) Petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to Pune District
Court Legal Services Authority within a period of four
weeks
6) Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of in above terms.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.3 of 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 30 September 2026
Date: 03/10/2026 16:14:14
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.