Parasram Aushadhalaya Thr. Managing Trustee, Shri. Vinay S/O Rameshwar Ughade v. Pralhad Nathuji Shende and Others

Bombay HC17 Jul 2025CAW/102/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of writ petition; condonation of 68-day delay; recall of Registrar (Judicial) order dated 25.09.2024; amendment of title clause; notice on corrected address; WP 2708/2022; Nagpur Bench; Civil Application (O) No.36/2025; Civil Application (W) No.101/2025; Civil Application (W) No.102/2025; R. M. Joshi, J.

What did the court decide?

All three civil applications allowed: (i) delay of 68 days in filing the restoration application condoned; (ii) order of Registrar (Judicial) dated 25.09.2024 recalled and Writ Petition No.2708/2022 restored to file; (iii) title-clause amendment permitted (to be carried out within two weeks) with notice to respondent nos.1 and 4 on corrected address, returnable on 11.08.2025. ¶¶20

Parasram Aushadhalaya Thr. Managing Trustee, Shri. Vinay S/O Rameshwar Ughade Vs Pralhad Nathuji Shende and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 68 days in filing the application for restoration of Writ Petition No.2708/2022 against respondent nos.1 and 4 should be condoned (Civil Application (O) No.36 of 2025). +2 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

As respondent nos.1 and 4 were not served with notice in Writ Petition No.2708/2022 and other respondents would not be aggrieved, the notice issued to all respondents stands dispensed with.

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

The delay of 68 days in filing the application for restoration of Writ Petition No.2708/2022 is satisfactorily explained; Civil Application (O) No.36/2025 stands allowed.

¶¶17

Key takeaways

For the reasons disclosed in the application, Civil Application (W) No.101/2025 is allowed; the order passed by Registrar (Judicial) dated 25.09.2024 is recalled and Writ Petition No.2708/2022 stands restored to file.ratio¶¶20
Civil Application (W) No.102/2025 is allowed: notice to respondent nos.1 and 4 could not be served for want of correct address and the same is now sought to be corrected.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench (R. M. Joshi, J., 17 July 2025), Writ Petition No.2708 of 2022 (Parasram Aushadhalaya, thr. its Managing Trustee v. Pralhad Nathuji Shende and others): (i) Civil Application (O) No.36 of 2025 — delay of 68 days in filing the application for restoration of the writ petition condoned as satisfactorily explained, notice to all respondents dispensed with; (ii) Civil Application (W) No.101 of 2025 — order passed by Registrar (Judicial) dated 25.09.2024 recalled and the writ petition restored to file; (iii) Civil Application (W) No.102 of 2025 — title-clause amendment permitted, to be carried out within two weeks, and notice ordered to respondent nos.1 and 4 on corrected address, returnable on 11.08.2025.

¶1

wp2708.22.O.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2708 OF 2022

¶5

(Parasram Aushadhalaya, thr. its Managing Trustee, Shri Vinay s/o Rameshwar Ughade Vs. Pralhad Nathuji Shende and others)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar’s Orders.

¶7

Court's or Judge's orders.

¶8

Ms. Aastha Sharma, Advocate h/f Mr. Pr. R. Agrawal, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶9

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE: 17th JULY, 2025.

¶10

CIVIL APPLICATION (O) NO.36 OF 2025 :

¶11

Heard.

¶12

This application is filed for condonation of delay of 68 days in filing application for restoration of Writ Petition No.2708/2022 against the respondent nos.1 and 4 and permitting the petitioner to amend the title clause of the petition.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since respondent nos.1 and 4 were not served with the notice in Writ Petition No.2708/2022 notice of this application to them be dispensed with. As far as other respondents are concerned they would not be aggrieved by the order if any passed in this application.

¶14

In view of above, the notice issued to all respondents stands dispensed with.

¶15

wp2708.22.O.odt

¶16

¶17

Perusal of the Civil Application (O) No.36/2025 indicates that the delay of 68 days is satisfactorily explained. Hence, the said application stands allowed.

¶18

CIVIL APPLICATION (W) NO.101 OF 2025 :

¶19

Heard.

¶20

For the reasons disclosed in the application, the same is allowed. Order passed by Registrar (Judicial) dated 25.09.2024 is recalled and Writ Petition No.2708/2022 stands restored to it’s file.

¶21

CIVIL APPLICATION (W) NO.102 OF 2025 :

¶22

The notice could not be served to the respondent nos.1 and respondent no.4 for want of correct address. Same is now sought to be corrected. Hence, the application allowed.

¶23

Amendment be carried out within a period of two weeks.

¶24

If amendment is carried out issue notice to respondent nos.1 and 4 on corrected address, returnable on 11.08.2025.

¶25

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶26

NSN

Parasram Aushadhalaya Thr. Managing Trustee, Shri. Vinay S/O Rameshwar Ughade v. Pralhad Nathuji Shende and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parasram Aushadhalaya Thr. Managing Trustee, Shri. Vinay S/O Rameshwar Ughade v. Pralhad Nathuji Shende and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun S/O. Ramrao Fasale vs Gajanan S/O. Anandrao Sontake and Others

Rajesh Dayalla Vyas vs Smt. Geetabai Baburao Kannamwar

Rajesh Dayalal Vyas vs Rekha Prakash Bejalwar

Parasram Aushadhalaya Thr. Managing Trustee, Shri. Vinay S/O Rameshwar Ughade Vs Pralhad Nathuji Shende and Others

Onkar S/O Khanu Jamunkar Vs Ramesh S/O Pandurang Dhandekar and Another

Parasram Aushadhalaya Thr. Managing Trustee, Shri. Vinay S/O Rameshwar Ughade Vs Pralhad Nathuji Shende and Others