1 WP 8322-2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8322 OF 2018 PRAVARA RURAL EDUCATION SOCIETY THROUGH IT SECRETARY VERSUS PRAVARA SAHAKARI DUGDHA VYAVSAYIK SANSTHA LTD THROUGH ITS MANAGER … Mr. Ashwin V. Hon – Advocate for Petitioner Mr. S.B. Kadu – Advocate for Respondent … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 18.03.2026 O R D E R : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2018 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Kopargaon in Civil Misc. Application No. 40 of 2017, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for restoration of Civil Misc. Application No. 8 of 2015 came to be rejected. 3. Learned Counsel, Mr. Ashwin Hon, for the petitioner submits that Regular Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2006 was listed for hearing on 30.07.2011, and on that day, due to the absence of the advocate representing the petitioner, the appeal came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, Civil Misc. Application No. 8 of 2015 was filed for restoration of the said appeal. He further submits that the said restoration application was listed for hearing on 07.07.2017, but due to the absence of the applicant and his advocate, the same came to be 2026:BHC-AUG:11967 2 WP 8322-2018.odt dismissed in default. He submits that such absence was not deliberate, but occurred due to non-appearance of the advocate. Consequently, the petitioner filed another Civil Misc. Application No. 40 of 2017 seeking restoration, however, the learned Trial Court rejected the same on the ground that on multiple occasions particularly, on eight dates, the applicant and his advocate remained absent despite sufficient opportunities. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner is an educational institution and had preferred the appeal being aggrieved by the decree dated 26.03.2002 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 374 of 1989. Since the matter has not been decided on merits, one more opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner to prosecute the appeal. Hence, he prays that the present Writ Petition be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel Mr. S.B. Kadu, for the respondent supports the impugned order. He submits that the conduct of the petitioner before the Appellate Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. He points out that the appeal, initially filed in the year 2002 and later renumbered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2006, was dismissed on 30.07.2011 for want of prosecution due to absence of the appellant and his advocate. 5. He further submits that even the restoration application was not prosecuted diligently, as neither the applicant nor his advocate remained present on several dates, and therefore, the application was rightly dismissed. According to him, the petitioner has taken the Court 3 WP 8322-2018.odt proceedings casually and has lost interest in prosecuting the matter. Hence, he supports the order passed by the learned Appellate Court. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the appeal was pending for a considerable period and was ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution due to continuous absence on the part of the petitioner. Even the restoration application suffered the same fate. However, it is equally true that the matter has not been decided on merits. In the interest of justice, and to afford one final opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter on merits, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order, despite the lapses on the part of the petitioner. In view thereof, the petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) to the Advocate’s Bar Association Library, Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. 8. The order dated 07.02.2018 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Kopargaon in Civil Misc. Application No. 40 of 2017 is quashed and set aside subject to aforesaid costs. 9. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ] Pooja Kale/