Allowed
Vilas Manikchand Mutha and Anr. v. Ganpat Arjuna Yeole and Ors.
Bombay HCAPPW/67/2008
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.45 OF 2008
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.420 OF 2001.
Shri Vilas Manikchand Mutha & Anr... Applicant.
versus
Shri Ganpat Arjuna Yeole & Ors... Respondents.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.67 OF 2008
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.420 OF 2001.
Shri Vilas Manikchand Mutha & Anr... Applicant.
versus
Shri Ganpat Arjuna Yeole & Ors... Respondents.
....
Mr. H.S.Venegavkar, for the Applicants, in both the
Applications.
Mr. Y.M.Nakhwa, APP, for the Respondent-State, in
both the Applications.
Mr. Venkatesh Shastri, for the Respondent No.1, in
both the Applications.
CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.
DATE : 24th September 2008.
P.C.:
1.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties. These applications have been filed by the
petitioners in the writ petition. The writ petition was
dismissed for non-prosecution as a result of
non-compliance with the conditional order dated 6th
September 2004. Criminal application no.45/2008 is for
restoration and criminal application no.67/2008 is for
: 2 :
condonation of delay in filing application for
restoration.
2.When a query was made to the learned counsel
appearing for the applicants as to why two separate
applications have been filed, the answer was that if one
composite application is filed containing prayer for
condonation of delay as well as restoration, an office
objection is raised by the Registry. In my view, in
such a case, it is not necessary to file two separate
applications. In application for restoration, a prayer
for condonation of delay can also be made and the
reasons for delay can be set out. Therefore, the
Registry cannot insist on filing two separate
applications.
3.These applications are opposed by the learned
counsel appearing for the first and the second
respondents on the ground that the writ petition has
been dismissed in the year 2004.
4.The writ petition stands dismissed for
non-removal of office objections and therefore, the
applicants cannot be blamed. Hence, a case is made out
for restoration.
: 3 :
5.Hence, I pass the following order :-
(1) Criminal application no.45/2008 and criminal
application no.67/2008 are allowed. The writ
petition is restored.
(2) A copy of this order shall be forwarded to
the Registrar (Judicial-I) to issue necessary
instructions to the Registry in view of what is
stated in paragraph 2 above.
Vilas Manikchand Mutha & Anr
Ganpat Arjuna Yeole & Ors
A.S.Oka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court