- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 941 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 211 OF 2017 AVINASH S/O. DHARMARAJ PAWAR VERSUS DEEPALI W/O. AVINASH PAWAR ( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ) DATE : 21st AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT : 1. This Court, vide order dated 26.03.2019, has observed that the learned Advocate for the Applicant was absent on various occasions and on the said date, since nobody had appeared, the matter was dismissed for want of prosecution. Therefore, the learned Advocate for the Applicant sought review of the order dated 26.03.2019. 2. This Court, on 29.11.2019 has observed that in order to give one more opportunity to the learned Advocate for the Applicant for substantial justice into the matter, the matter came to be restored. However, the learned Advocate for the Applicant has given undertaking that henceforth there would not be any lapse on his part into the khs/Aug.2026/211 2026:BHC-AUG:38151 - 2 - matter. Thereafter, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, on 08.01.2020, 12.02.2020, 09.03.2020 and 04.04.2025, virtually sought time on the ground of having personal difficulty. On 04.04.2025, the learned Advocate for the Applicant was absent. 3. In that view of the matter, it is clearly revealed that the learned Advocate for the Applicant as well as the Applicant has lost interest in the matter. As such, the Revision Application stands dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. However, if the learned Advocate for the Applicant will again file an application for restoration of this matter, the reference of today’s order be taken into account. ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) khs/Aug.2026/211