Allowed

Pushpabai Deelip Mahankale and Ors. v. Deeliprao Madhukarrao Mahankale and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Aug 2011APPLN/1566/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed a criminal application for restoration of a writ petition dismissed in default. The court found sufficient grounds for the applicants' non-appearance on 25.3.2011, which was not wilful, and recalled the dismissal order, restoring the petition. The application was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The application allowed; order dismissing writ petition recalled; writ petition restored to file.

Pushpabai Deelip Mahankale and Ors. Vs Deeliprao… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders.

¶3

Court's or Judge's orders

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1566 OF 2011 In WP/510/2002

¶5

PUSHPABAI DEELIP MAHANKALE AND ORS VERSUS DEELIPRAO MADHUKARRAO MAHANKALE AND ORS

¶6

... Advocate for Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shinde Ram S. Mr. V.S.Tanwade advocate for R-1. APP for Respondent(s): MrD.R.Korde R-2.

¶7

... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. Dated: August 12, 2011 ...

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

This is an application preferred by the applicants - original petitioners, for restoration of the Criminal Writ Petition No.510/2002, which was dismissed in default on 25.3.2011 and also for recalling the said order.

¶10

After considering the contents of the application and rival submissions advanced by the parties, it appears that applicants have pleaded and proved sufficient ground for absence of the applicants and their advocate on 25.3.2011, on which criminal writ petition came to be dismissed

¶11

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶12

Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders.

¶13

Court's or Judge's orders

¶14

and hence, said order deserves to be recalled and said writ petition deserves to be restored to its original stage in the interest of justice. It also appears that absence of the applicants and their advocate on the said date was not wilful, deliberate and therefore, also present application is required to be allowed.

¶15

In the result, present application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B' there of and order dated 25.3.2011, dismissing the writ petition 510/2002, stands recalled and said writ petition stands restored to file at its original stage and present application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶16

aaa/***

Pushpabai Deelip Mahankale and Ors. v. Deeliprao Madhukarrao Mahankale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpabai Deelip Mahankale and Ors. v. Deeliprao Madhukarrao Mahankale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Thr. Bm Prasad Joshi Vs Manojkumar Motilal Bangad

Sangeeta Rajkishor Kunwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhaurao Kisan Nagtlik and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Satnam Gurudayal Singh Vs State of Maharashtra

Satypal Vaidyaram Kataria Vs Salamoddin Shamshoddinand Ors.

Asif Khan Abdul Samad Khan Vs the State of Mah Thr. Chawani P.S.