Bombay High Court

SHRI. LAXMAN BAPU KHEDKAR AND ORSversusSMT. JIJABAI DAMU KHEDKAR AND ORS

Decided: 3 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The High Court held that the petitioners' habitual non‑prosecution precludes any interference, and the order dismissing the restoration application stands.

Summary

The petitioners sought restoration of a condonation of delay application that had been dismissed for non‑prosecution, arguing that they should not suffer due to alleged advocate mistakes. The original suit, decreed in 2001, involved ancestral property and an injunction against the petitioners, who failed to appeal within the prescribed time and later filed a belated appeal with a condonation application. The district court dismissed the condonation application for delay, and a subsequent miscellaneous application for its restoration was also dismissed for non‑prosecution. The High Court observed that the petitioners repeatedly failed to diligently prosecute their proceedings and found no merit to interfere under Article 227. Consequently, the writ petition challenging the 2013 order was dismissed, and the related interim application was also disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 to restore a condonation of delay application dismissed for non‑prosecution.
Whether the petitioners' repeated failure to prosecute the proceedings bars them from obtaining relief.

Subjects

writ petition
condonation of delay
non‑prosecution
injunction
extra‑ordinary jurisdiction
Article 227
restoration of application

Judgment

Neeta Sawant 909-WP-3645-2016.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 3645 OF 2016
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 20215 OF 2026

Shri. Laxman Bapu Khedkar & Ors. ….. Petitioners
: Versus :
Smt. Jijabai Damu Khedkar & Ors. … .Respondents

Ms. Sanskruti More and Ms. Madhuri Negi i/b. Auris Legal, for the
Petitioners.
Ms. Shraddha Pawar with Mr. Shreeniwas Magar i/b. Mr. Dilip Bodake, for
Respondent Nos.2 to 9.

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 3 SEPTEMBER 2026.

P.C :

1) The petition challenges order dated 14 August 2013 passed by
the District Judge-3, Pune dismissing Misc. Application No. 494 of 2004
filed by the Petitioners seeking restoration of the application for
condonation of delay which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 22
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
SHAILESH
June 2004.
NEETA
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.09.05
10:53:17 _____________________________________________________________________________
+0530

PAGE NOS. 1 of 3
Thursday, 3 September 2026
Neeta Sawant 909-WP-3645-2016.docx

2) I have heard Ms. More, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioners and Ms. Pawar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent
Nos.2 to 9.

3) Plaintiff’s Suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 30/1998 was
decreed on 15 October 2001. The Trial Court while declaring that suit
properties are ancestral properties, granted injunction against the
Petitioners/Original Defendants from disturbing Plaintiffs possession of
the suit properties. Petitioners/Defendants did not promptly challenge
the decree by filing the Appeal within the permissible period of time.
They filed the Appeal belatedly together with application for condonation
of delay. The delay condonation application was initially dismissed for
Respondent No.5 on 13 April 2004 for failure to serve on him.
Thereafter the application was adjourned on 7 June 2004, 10 June 2004
and 22 June 2004. Due to non-appearance on the part of the Petitioner,
the District Court proceeded to dismiss the delay condonation application
for delay on 22 June 2004.

4) The Petitioners filed Misc. Application No. 494/2004 for
restoration of delay condonation application on 15 July 2004. It appears
that Misc. Application No. 494/2004 was also not diligently prosecuted
by the Petitioners which was dismissed for non-prosecution by order
dated 21 June 2007. Copy of order dated 21 June 2007 is not produced
by the Petitioners which is placed on record by the Respondents alonwith
their Affidavit-in-Reply.

_____________________________________________________________________________

PAGE NOS. 2 of 3
Thursday, 3 September 2026
Neeta Sawant 909-WP-3645-2016.docx

5) How Misc. Application No. 494/2004 got restored is not
known at this stage. However, it appears that the same is decided afresh
by the impugned order dated 14 August 2013. Thus, Petitioners appear
to be habitual in not diligently prosecuting the proceedings. In that view
of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this Court in
exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Petitioners are suffering injunction for the last 25
longs years and I do not find any reason why they should now be granted
an opportunity to prosecute delay condonation application or the Appeal
on merits.

6) Ms. More, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners
vehemently urges before the Court that Petitioners need not be made to
suffer due to mistake on the part of the advocate. There appears to be
repeated mistakes on the part of the Petitioners in not diligently
prosecuting the proceedings before the Appellate Court. They cannot
seek to blame their advocate and get away with consequences of their
own negligent conduct. Considering the above position, I am not
inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The Writ Petition is
accordingly dismissed. With dismissal of the Petition, nothing survives
in the Interim Application. The same also stands disposed of.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

_____________________________________________________________________________

PAGE NOS. 3 of 3
Thursday, 3 September 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…