1 930cra22.2020.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR . CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 22 OF 2020 MADHAV SAOJI NAKTODE (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS. SANJAY S/O MADHAV NAKTODE AND OTHERS VS CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O YADAVRAO NAKTODE AND OTHERS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.S. Bhendarkar, counsel for applicants. CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATED : 07-09-2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants at length. Despite service, none appeared for the non- applicants. 2. By the present revision application, filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the applicants/original defendants take exception to the order dated 04/11/2019 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 57 of 2018 (Chandrashekar & 3 others Vs Prakash & 7 others), whereby the requests of the non-applicants / plaintiffs seeking restoration of the suit and condonation of delay came to be allowed. 3. The present applicant Nos. 1 to 5 are the original defendant Nos. 6A to 6E, whereas the non- applicant Nos. 1 to 4 are the original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 48 of 2014. For the sake of brevity, the 2026:BHC-NAG:11900 2 930cra22.2020.odt parties are hereinafter referred to by their original capacity. 4. The non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 48 of 2014, and prayed for declaration and partition of the suit property. However, the said suit came to be dismissed for want of prosecution by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Bramhapuri on 10/07/2017. 5. The non-applicants/plaintiffs thereafter filed Misc. Civil Application No. 57 of 2018 and prayed restoration of the suit, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 10/07/2017. On 04/11/2019, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order holding that there is delay of 258 days in filing the application for restoration. The learned trial Court noted that there had been no communication between the plaintiffs and their counsel. So also, the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 8, though they had filed their reply at Exhibit-25, had not raised any objection for restoration of the suit. 6. Considering the cause shown in the application and the sufficient explanation given by the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4/original plaintiffs, the learned trial Court allowed the application and restored the Regular Civil Suit No. 48 of 2014 to its original stage, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 3,000/- by the plaintiffs to the defendant Nos. 6A to 6E. 7. Having regard to the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court, I do not find that the learned trial Court has committed any jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order. 3 930cra22.2020.odt 8. Hence, the revision application stands dismissed. No costs. (Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) rkn Signed by: Mr. R.K. NANDURKAR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 08/09/2026 18:49:04