The Executive Engineer, Lower Wardha Canal Division, Wardha Vs Dnyaneshwar Sheshrao Pande and 2 Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The Executive Engineer, Lower Wardha Canal Division, Wardha Vs Dnyaneshwar Sheshrao Pande and 2 Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both applications allowed as prayed; delay condoned and First Appeal No. 409 of 2014 restored to its original position; applicant's counsel to submit the paper book within four weeks and supply a copy to the other side; matter listed on 20/08/2025 on final hearing board; record and proceedings called for, if returned.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the restoration application and the application to restore First Appeal No. 409 of 2014 (dismissed for non-filing of the paper book within the prescribed time) should be condoned and the appeal restored to its original position.

Court's answer

Both applications — for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application and for restoration of the appeal — are allowed as prayed; the delay is condoned and the appeal is restored to its original position.

Ratio / Principle

The Court found no substance in the respondent's objection that there was a huge delay in filing the application, having regard to the counsel's name not being listed in the cause list and her undertaking to submit the paper book within four weeks.

Key takeaways

Restoration was deemed appropriate to afford the applicant an opportunity to contest the matter on merit, considering her undertaking that she is ready to submit the paper book within four weeks and supply a copy to the other side.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench (Abhay J. Mantri, J.), Civil Application (CAO) No. 1396 of 2024 in Misc. Civil Application Stamp No. 12261 of 2024 in First Appeal No. 409 of 2014, decided 23.07.2025 — Condonation of delay and restoration. The Executive Engineer, Lower Wardha Canal Division, Wardha (appellant) applied to condone the delay in filing a restoration application and to restore First Appeal No. 409 of 2014, which stood dismissed for non-filing of the paper book within the prescribed time. The appellant's counsel had filed her Vakalatnama on 13/01/2017, but her name was omitted from the cause list for 07/03/2017, so she neither marked nor attended the matter and remained unaware of the order. Respondent No. 1 (Dnyaneshwar Sheshrao Pande) did not dispute these facts, objecting only to the huge delay, yet though he appeared on 31/01/2025 he filed no reply. Holding there was no substance in the delay objection, and considering the counsel's undertaking to submit the paper book within four weeks and supply copies, the Court condoned the delay, allowed both applications as prayed and restored the appeal, posting it on the final hearing board for 20/08/2025.

1 35-1396-2024.odt

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

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 1396 OF 2024 IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO. 12261 OF 2024 IN

FIRST APPEAL NO. 409 OF 2014

The Executive Engineer, Lower Wardha Canal Division, Wardha

Vs.

Dnyaneshwar Sheshrao Pande and others

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

Ms A.S. Athalye, Advocate for appellant Shri S.V. Sohoni, Advocate for respondent No.1 Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for respondent/State

CORAM : SHRI ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.

DATED : 23.07.2025

Heard learned Counsel for both parties.

These applications are filed to condone the delay in filing the restoration application and application to restore the appeal to its original position, which was dismissed for non-filing of the paper book within the prescribed time.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that on 13/01/2017, she had filed the Vakalatnama in the matter, and the matter was listed on 07/03/2017; however, her name was not shown in the cause list, and therefore, she did not mark the said matter, so she could not attend the matter. Consequently, she was unaware of the passing of the order, and the order had not been complied with. The said factual position is not disputed by the learned Counsel for

2 35-1396-2024.odt

respondent No. 1. However, he has objected to the application on the ground that there is a huge delay in filing the application. It is pertinent to note that despite respondent No. 1 appearing in the matter on 31/01/2025, he failed to file a reply to the application, which itself leads to the inference that he does not wish to oppose the claim of the applicant. Therefore, he could not file a reply.

Having considered the reasons disclosed in the application that her name was not listed in the cause list and therefore the matter could not be marked by her and failed to comply the order as well as considering her undertaking that she is ready to submit the paper book within four weeks and supply a copy of the paper book to the other side, I deem it appropriate that, to afford an opportunity to the applicant to contest the matter on merit. Thus, I do not find substance in the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent. In view of the above, both applications are allowed as prayed. As such, the delay shall be condoned and the appeal be restored to its original position.

List the matter on 20/08/2025, on final hearing board.

Call for record and proceedings, if it is returned.

( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

Jayashree….