Urmilabai W/O Harishchandra Ghasale and 2 Ors. vs Ramzan Nasir Mahd.Sheikh and 2 Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Urmilabai W/O Harishchandra Ghasale and 2 Ors. vs Ramzan Nasir Mahd.Sheikh and 2 Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 2061 days in filing the restoration application condoned subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the Advocate Bar Association, Bhandara; Misc. Civil Application St. No.11022 of 2024 allowed and Second Appeal No.260 of 2001 restored; fresh notice issued to respondents, returnable on 06.03.2026, service to be effected also by speed post with affidavit of service filed before the returnable date.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 2061 days in filing the application for restoration of Second Appeal No.260 of 2001 (dismissed for want of prosecution on 07.10.2016) ought to be condoned.

Court's answer

Having regard to the parties litigating since 1990, the appeal's pendency of around 15 years before its dismissal for want of prosecution, and the respondents choosing not to contest the application, the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

On account of the delay caused, costs of Rs.10,000/- are imposed, to be paid by the appellants to the Advocate Bar Association at Bhandara.

Key takeaways

Misc. Civil Application St. No.11022 of 2024 is allowed and Second Appeal No.260 of 2001 is restored.ratio¶6
The name of deceased appellant No.1 is ordered to be deleted from the record.ratio¶1
Respondent Nos.1 and 3, though served, have not entered appearance; the name of respondent No.2 is ordered to be deleted.ratio¶2

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay - Restoration of second appeal - Second Appeal No.260 of 2001 dismissed for want of prosecution on 07.10.2016 - Delay of 2061 days in filing restoration application explained by death of the appellants' counsel while the appeal was pending, appellants learning of continued pendency only on enquiry - Held, given litigation running since 1990 and pendency of the 2001 appeal for about 15 years, and respondents not contesting, delay condoned with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by appellants to the Advocate Bar Association, Bhandara - Misc. Civil Application St. No.11022 of 2024 allowed; Second Appeal No.260 of 2001 restored - Name of deceased appellant No.1 (Urmilabai) deleted; name of respondent No.2 deleted, respondent Nos.1 and 3 not appearing despite service - Fresh notice returnable 06.03.2026 (Rohit W. Joshi, J.) [Bombay HC (Nagpur Bench), 07/01/2026].

1.cao.815.2024.odt

1

2026:BHC-NAG:134

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

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.815 OF 2024 IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.11022 OF 2024 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.260 OF 2001

Urmilabai W/o Harishchandra Ghasale (dead) Kamlaprasad S/o Baliram Motghare and another .Vs. Nazir Mohd S/o Mohd. Sheikh (Dead) through LRs. Ramzan Nazir Mohammad Sheikh and others

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 07/01/2026

The learned Advocate for the appellants has filed Pursis dated 25.07.2024 intimating that the appellant No.1, namely Urmilabai Harishchandara Ghasale, has expired on 15.11.2013. Perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court will indicate that the deceased appellant No.1, who is the original defendant No.1, had executed sale deed with respect to the suit property in favour of defendant No.3, who is appellant No.3 in the present appeal. The estate of deceased appellant No.1 in the suit property will therefore be represented by appellant No.1. Name of appellant No.1 is therefore ordered to be deleted.

Despite being served with the notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 3 have not entered appearance in the matter. Name of respondent No.2 is ordered to be deleted.

Second Appeal No.260 of 2001 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 07.10.2016.

2 1.cao.815.2024.odt

This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing application for restoration of the said second appeal. There is a delay of 2061 days in filing the restoration application. It is stated in the application that the learned Advocate representing the appellants in the second appeal had left for heavenly abode while the appeal is pending and upon receiving notice to engage another advocate, the appellants had contacted an advocate at Nagpur in order to represent them in the appeal. It is stated that the appellants were made to understand that the appeal is pending on enquiries being made from the said advocate.

Having regard to the fact that the parties are litigating since the year 1990 and the appeal filed in the year 2001 was pending for around 15 years before it was dismissed for want of prosecution on 07.10.2016, coupled with the fact that the respondents have chosen not to contest the application, the application for condonation of delay in filing restoration of appeal is allowed. However, having regard to the delay caused, it will be appropriate to impose costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the appellants to the Advocate Bar Association at Bhandara.

For the reasons mentioned above, Misc. Civil Application St. No.11022 of 2024 is allowed . Second Appeal No.260 of 2001 is restored.

SECOND APPEAL NO.260 OF 2001

Issue fresh notice to the respondents, returnable on 06.03.2026 .

3 1.cao.815.2024.odt

The appellants are directed to serve the respondents by speed post in addition to regular mode of service and file affidavit of service before the returnable date.

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

C.L. Dhakate