Partly allowed

Brijmohan Tejaram Thori and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Sept 2023IA/1790/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim application filed for restoration of a criminal application previously dismissed for alleged non-compliance with a conditional order to submit spare copies. The Court held the Applicant had complied within the prescribed period and allowed restoration while directing an inquiry into the Registry's laps of error. Dismissal was initialy dismissed by lower court

What did the court decide?

Application for restoration allowed; direction to Registrar Judicial-I to conduct in-depth inquiry into Registry's lapse.

Brijmohan Tejaram Thori and Anr. Vs the State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

rsk 28-IA-1790-23.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1790 OF 2023

¶5

IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.190 OF 2023

¶7

Brijmohan Tejaram Thori ….. Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ….. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Shyam K. Tripathi i/b Mr. Vivek B. Pandey for the Applicant.
Mrs. M. H. Mhatre, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Aarif Ali for Respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2023.

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

1)Present Application is filed for condonation of delay and for
restoration of Criminal Application (ST) No.21939/2022. Record indicates
that vide Order dated 7th January 2023, the co-ordinate Bench (Coram:
Revati Mohite Dere & Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.) had directed Advocate for
Applicant to supply spare copies of Application in the Registry within a
period of two weeks, failing which Application shall stand dismissed for
want of prosecution, without further reference to the Court.

¶13

2)According to us, the period of two weeks from 7th January

¶14

1/3

¶15

rsk 28-IA-1790-23.doc

¶16

2023 would come to an end on 21st January 2023. Exhibit C (Page 10) to
the Application clearly discloses that, the said Application has been
dismissed for non compliance with the conditional Order on 7th January
2023 itself. Exhibit B (page 9) to the Application discloses that learned
Advocate for Applicant submitted spare copies in the Registry on 17th
January 2023. There is an acknowledgment by the Section Officer, High
Court, Appellate Side, Bombay to that effect.

¶17

3)Thus, it is clear that Applicant had in fact complied with the
Order dated 7th January 2023 by submitting necessary spare copies in the
Registry within the stipulated period.

¶18

4)Despite the said fact, Registry has dismissed the said
Application for non-compliance with Order dated 7th January 2023 and
has uploaded the case status as dismissed for non-compliance of
conditional Order on the official website of the High Court.

¶19

According to us this is a matter of serious concern. Despite
having complied with the conditional Order dated 7th January 2023,
undue inconvenience and harassment has been caused to the Applicant
who, is constrained to file Application for restoration resulting in delay
and costs. We therefore direct the Registrar Judicial-I to conduct in-depth
inquiry into the said lapse on part of Registry and submit its Report to this
Court on or before the next date.

¶20

2/3

¶21

rsk 28-IA-1790-23.doc

¶22

5) Stand over to 13^th October 2023.

¶23

6) In view of the aforesaid observations, present Application for

¶24

restoration deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of
prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶25

7)Learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of Respondent
No.2 and submitted that he has already filed his vakalatnama on behalf of
Respondent No.2. Therefore direction to supply spare copy as of today
does not survive.

¶26

(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)

¶27

3/3

Brijmohan Tejaram Thori and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijmohan Tejaram Thori and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Ghanshyam Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra

Narsingh Champalal Parmar @ Ram and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shivkumar Ramkrishnan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Avshesh Ashok Kumar Singh Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ajit Soni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sajjan S/O. Devaram Choudhary Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.