PRAVARA RURAL EDUCATION SOCIETY THROUGH IT SECRETARYversusPRAVARA SAHAKARI DUGDHA VYAVSAYIK SANSTHA LTD THEROUGH ITS MANAGER

2026:BHC-AUG:11967
                                                  1                          WP 8322-2018.odt


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 8322 OF 2018
                PRAVARA RURAL EDUCATION SOCIETY THROUGH IT SECRETARY
                                             VERSUS
              PRAVARA SAHAKARI DUGDHA VYAVSAYIK SANSTHA LTD THROUGH
                                          ITS MANAGER
                                                …
             Mr. Ashwin V. Hon – Advocate for Petitioner
             Mr. S.B. Kadu – Advocate for Respondent
                                                …
                                  CORAM        : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                   DATE          : 18.03.2026

             ORDER:
             1.      Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for

             respondent.

             2.      The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2018 passed

             by the learned District Judge-2, Kopargaon in Civil Misc. Application No.

             40 of 2017, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for restoration

             of Civil Misc. Application No. 8 of 2015 came to be rejected.

             3.      Learned Counsel, Mr. Ashwin Hon, for the petitioner submits that

             Regular Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2006 was listed for hearing on

             30.07.2011, and on that day, due to the absence of the advocate

             representing the petitioner, the appeal came to be dismissed for want of

             prosecution. Thereafter, Civil Misc. Application No. 8 of 2015 was filed

             for restoration of the said appeal. He further submits that the said

             restoration application was listed for hearing on 07.07.2017, but due to

             the absence of the applicant and his advocate, the same came to be
                                     2                           WP 8322-2018.odt


dismissed in default. He submits that such absence was not deliberate,

but occurred due to non-appearance of the advocate. Consequently, the

petitioner filed another Civil Misc. Application No. 40 of 2017 seeking

restoration, however, the learned Trial Court rejected the same on the

ground that on multiple occasions particularly, on eight dates, the

applicant   and   his   advocate   remained   absent   despite      sufficient

opportunities. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner is an

educational institution and had preferred the appeal being aggrieved by

the decree dated 26.03.2002 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 374 of

1989. Since the matter has not been decided on merits, one more

opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner to prosecute the

appeal. Hence, he prays that the present Writ Petition be allowed.

4.    Per contra, learned Counsel Mr. S.B. Kadu, for the respondent

supports the impugned order. He submits that the conduct of the

petitioner before the Appellate Court does not warrant any interference

by this Court. He points out that the appeal, initially filed in the year

2002 and later renumbered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2006, was

dismissed on 30.07.2011 for want of prosecution due to absence of the

appellant and his advocate.

5.    He further submits that even the restoration application was not

prosecuted diligently, as neither the applicant nor his advocate remained

present on several dates, and therefore, the application was rightly

dismissed. According to him, the petitioner has taken the Court
                                        3                         WP 8322-2018.odt


proceedings casually and has lost interest in prosecuting the matter.

Hence, he supports the order passed by the learned Appellate Court.

6.       Having heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and upon

perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the appeal was pending for

a considerable period and was ultimately dismissed for want of

prosecution due to continuous absence on the part of the petitioner. Even

the restoration application suffered the same fate. However, it is equally

true that the matter has not been decided on merits. In the interest of

justice, and to afford one final opportunity to the petitioner to contest the

matter on merits, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned

order, despite the lapses on the part of the petitioner. In view thereof, the

petition deserves to be allowed.

7.       Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, subject to payment of costs of

Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) to the Advocate’s Bar

Association Library, Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad.

8.       The order dated 07.02.2018 passed by the learned District Judge-2,

Kopargaon in Civil Misc. Application No. 40 of 2017 is quashed and set

aside subject to aforesaid costs.

9.       Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.



                                     [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ]

Pooja Kale/