Bombay High Court

JAGANNATH DAMU KAD AND ORSversusSONAL KETAN SHAHA, THROUGH RAJENDRA MAFATLAL SHAHA AND ORS

Decided: 4 March 2026
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: AMIT BORKAR

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the petitioner's failure to appear.

Summary

The petitioners, Sayali and Jagannath Damu Kad, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The respondents, including Deepak Upasani and others, communicated a change of their advocate, which was recorded as document ‘X’. Despite the change of counsel, no representative of the petitioners appeared before the Court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition on the ground of non‑prosecution. The petitioner's advocate, Mr. N. J. Patil, was also discharged from the case.

Issues considered

What is the effect of a petitioner's failure to appear before the Court after a change of advocate by the respondents?
Whether the petition can be dismissed for non‑prosecution under procedural law?

Subjects

writ petition
non‑prosecution
advocate change
dismissal
procedural default

Judgment

                                                                                 61-WP-2829-13.doc


                                                                                      Sayali


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 2829 OF 2013
SAYALI                Jagannath Damu Kad and Others          … Petitioners
DEEPAK                           V/s.
UPASANI
                      Sonal Ketan Shaha. Thr. Rajendra
Digitally signed by
SAYALI DEEPAK
UPASANI
                      Mafatlal Shah and Others               … Respondents
Date: 2026.03.04
16:54:22 +0530

                      Mr. N. J. Patil, for Petitioners.
                      Mrs. Mamta S. Srivastav, AGP for State-Respondent
                      nos. 21 and 23.
                      Ms. Anamika Singh i/b S. K. Srivastav and Co., for
                      Respondent Nos. 1 to 20.
                                               CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                      DATED     : MARCH 04, 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      The learned Advocate for the respondent has tendered the
                      original communication addressed by the respondent informing
                      him regarding the change of Advocate. A photostat copy of such
                      communication is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for
                      identification.

                      2.      Despite changing the Advocate, none appeared for the
                      petitioner.    The   petition    is   therefore   dismissed    for   non-
                      prosecution.

                      3.      The learned Advocate, Mr. N. J. Patil is discharged.


                                                                        (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                                            1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…