Shri Debashish S/O Prabhat Choudhary vs Sudhakar Vinayakarao Ingole and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shri Debashish S/O Prabhat Choudhary vs Sudhakar Vinayakarao Ingole and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Notice ordered to be issued to the respondents, returnable on 13.01.2026; the applicant permitted to serve the respondents by all permissible modes of service in addition to the regular mode of service. The restoration application (with condonation of delay) remains to be considered after service; no final restoration was granted in this order.

Issue for consideration

Whether First Appeal No.602/2010 (D), dismissed for want of prosecution on account of the appellant's non-appearance, should be restored pursuant to the applicant's post-dismissal application accompanied by an application for condonation of delay.

Court's answer

The applicant's grievance that the office did not inform him of the hearing dates, causing him to miss the proceedings, is not a permissible reason.

Ratio / Principle

It is for the litigant/appellant to be vigilant and attend the proceedings before the Court; the Court will not communicate each and every date to the appellant.

Key takeaways

In view of the factual position and the applicant's recorded undertaking (¶23) to attend the proceedings if the appeal is restored, the Court ordered notice to the respondents, returnable on 13.01.2026.ratio¶¶24
The applicant was permitted to serve the respondents by all permissible modes of service in addition to the regular mode of service.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Pravin S. Patil, J. — Order dated 10.12.2025 in Civil Application No.1317/2025 (in Misc. Civil Application St. No.27241/2025 in First Appeal No.602/2010 (D)), Debashish Prabhat Chowdhury (appellant, appearing in person) v. Sudhakar Vinayakrao Ingole and another. The appeal had been dismissed for want of prosecution after the appellant — whose advocate, Shri Pimpalkhute, was discharged on 18.09.2025, and who was thereafter permitted to argue in person upon a favourable Committee report — failed to appear when the matter was listed on 06.10.2025, 10.10.2025 and 13.10.2025. Moving for restoration with condonation of delay, the applicant pleaded that the office had not informed him of the dates; the Court held such a reason impermissible, a litigant being expected to remain vigilant and attend the proceedings. On the applicant's undertaking to attend future hearings if the appeal were restored, notice was ordered to the respondents, returnable on 13.01.2026, with liberty to serve by all permissible modes in addition to regular service.

17 cao 1317-2025.odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1317/2025 IN

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.27241/2025 IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.602/2010 (D) Debashish Prabhat Chowdhury

Vs.

Sudhakar Vinayakrao Ingole and another

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

Shri D.P. Chowdhury, present in-person

CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATE : 10.12.2025

Heard.

In the present matter, the appellant appeared inperson. The perusal of the record shows that this Court on 18.09.2025, discharged Advocate Shri Pimpalkhute appearing on behalf of the appellant. As the present applicant was interested to prosecute the present appeal inperson.

Accordingly, he was referred to the Committee to verify whether he is eligible to prosecute the present appeal in-person. After the report of the Committee, the appellant was permitted to prosecute proceedings in-person.

After the report of the Committee, this matter was listed before this Court on 06.10.2025, 10.10.2025,

17 cao 1317-2025.odt

2

13.10.2025, the appellant did not appear in the matter. Therefore, this Court was constrained to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

After dismissal of the appeal, the application is moved for restoration of the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay.

The applicant raised a grievance that he was not informed the dates by the office, therefore, he was unable to attend the proceedings. Such reason is not permissible because it is not expected that this Court will communicate each and every date to the appellant. It is for the appellant to be vigilant and attend the proceeding before this Court.

Today, the appellant undertakes to this Court that he will attend the proceedings, if the appeal is restored by this Court.

In view of this factual position and the statement of the applicant, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 13.01.2026.

The applicant is permitted to serve the respondents by all permissible modes of service in addition to the regular mode of service.

(PRAVIN S. PATIL J.)

R.S. Sahare

Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 10/12/2025 19:06:38