Bombay High Court

LALA SHANKARRAO PAWARversusRAMA SHANKARRAO PAWAR

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner sought to lead secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act in a 2017 suit, filing an application in 2021 which the civil court rejected. The High Court stayed the impugned order and later restored the writ petition after a civil application. However, the petitioner failed to appear on two consecutive dates when the matter was called, indicating a loss of interest or abuse of the restoration order. The Court noted this default and dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution. It also conditioned any future restoration on a deposit of Rs.20,000 as costs.

Issues considered

The court must determine whether dismissal of a writ petition for want of prosecution is appropriate when the petitioner fails to appear despite restoration.
Whether the petitioner’s failure to appear constitutes a waiver of the right to pursue the writ petition.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 65

Subjects

writ petition
dismissal for want of prosecution
secondary evidence
Section 65
Civil Procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38949



                                                       1
                                                                       924-wp-9215-2023

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 9215 OF 2023

                                      Lala Shankarrao Pawar
                                             VERSUS
                                     Rama Shankarrao Pawar
                                                ...
                     Mr. A. B. Bhagat h/f Mr. G. P. Darandale, Advocate for
                     Respondent
                                               …..
                                       CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                             DATED : 27TH AUGUST, 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     .         In a suit of 2017, an application came to be filed by the
                     plaintiff seeking permission to lead evidence by way of
                     secondary evidence. The application was sought to be filed
                     under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act which was filed
                     in the year 2021. The said application came to be turned
                     down by the Civil Court.

                     2.        While issuing notice in the present Writ Petition, this
                     Court stayed the impugned order. Suffice to note, stay to the
                     suit proceedings. The matter was adjourned to today vide
                     order dated 20.08.2026 granting a last chance.

                     3.        Today, when the matter was called out in the first
                     session, nobody was present for the petitioner. Even when the
                     matter was called out in the second session, none appeared
                     for the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that, earlier also by
                     order dated 10.03.2026, this Court was constrained to dismiss
                                2
                                                924-wp-9215-2023

the Writ Petition in default for want of prosecution.
Subsequently, a Civil Application No.5341 of 2026 was filed
for restoration of Writ Petition. The said Civil Application was
allowed and the Writ Petition came to be restored.

4.      As observed above, today on both occasions when the
matter was called out, nobody has caused appearance on
behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner has lost
his interest in prosecuting the Writ Petition or has taken
undue advantage of the last order restoring the Writ Petition.

5.      In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed
for want of prosecution.

6.      In the event of a prayer for restoration of the Writ
Petition, a costs of Rs.20,000/- shall be a condition precedent
to have been deposited in the Registry of this Court.



                                    ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

Rushikesh/2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…