Megha 21_wp_11113_2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11113 OF 2018 Kisanrao Dhavji Rathod ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ________________ Ms. Shrushti Kale with Ms. Samiksha Lokhande i/b. Ms. Manjiri Parasnis for the Petitioner. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 30 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) By this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged order dated 2 March 2017 passed by the learned District Judge-10, Pune, rejecting Civil Misc. Application No.20 of 2016, by which the Petitioner had prayed for restoration of Misc. Civil Appeal No.290 of 2013, which was dismissed for default on 10 June 2015. There was also delay of 150 days in filing Civil Misc. Application No.20 of 2016 and condonation thereof was also sought in the same Application. 2) I have heard Ms. Kale, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and considered the submissions canvassed by her. Office Page No. 1 of 3 30 September 2026 2026:BHC-AS:40177 Megha 21_wp_11113_2018 report indicates that the Respondents are duly served. However, none has appeared on behalf of the Respondents. 3) Perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Court would indicate that it has failed to record even a single reason for dismissing the Application for restoration and for condonation of delay. Beyond recording ratio of three judgments of the Apex Court and of this Court, the District Court has not independently assessed as to whether a reasonable cause was made out in the Application for non-appearance on 10 June 2011 when Misc. Civil Appeal No.290 of 2013 was dismissed for default. I have gone through the Civil Misc. Application No.20 of 2016, in which following explanation was pleaded:- २. सदरील अर्ज दार मूळ अपिलदार हे त्यांचे व्यवसायपिपिमत्त व सामाजिर्जक कामापिपिमत्त सन्त बाहेर गावी र्जावे लागत असल्यामुळे व वेळोवेळी बाहेर गावी व्यवसायापिपिमत्त गेल्यास अर्ज दार यांचे व्यवसायामध्ये ुकसा शक्यता ाकारता येत ाही म्हणू अर्ज दार यांा वेळेवर वपिकलांशी भेटता आले ाही तसेच सदरील अर्जा मध्ये उन्हाळी सुट्टीच्या शेवटच्या पिदवशी अर्ज दार यांचे अील ऑर्ड र साठी होते व तद ंतर उन्हाळी सुट्टी सुरु झाल्यामुळे अर्ज दार यांा साक्षांपिकत प्रतित काढण्यासाठी अर्ज दार बाहेरगावी असल्यामुळे व कोट काम बंद असल्यामुळे अर्ज दार यांा त्यांचे वपिकलांा योग्य वेळी भेटता आले सल्यामुळे अर्ज दार यांा मे. जिर्जल्हा न्यायाधीश न्यायालय यांचेसमोर अील ुन्हा फै लावर घेण्याचा पिवंती अर्ज दाखल करण्यास अर्ज दार यांस १५० पिदवसाचा उशीर झाला आहे. 4) The District Court has failed to apply its mind to the above justification and has proceeded to casually reject Civil Misc. Application No.20 of 2016. In my view, looking into the justification pleaded in the restoration application, the District Court ought to have provided an opportunity to prosecute the Appeal on merits. At the same time for negligent conduct exhibited by the Petitioner, some costs are required to be imposed on the Petitioner. Page No. 2 of 3 30 September 2026 Megha 21_wp_11113_2018 5) I accordingly, proceed to pass the following order:- (i) Order dated 2 March 2017 passed in Civil Misc. Application No.20 of 2016 is set aside and the application is made absolute in terms of prayers made therein. (ii) Accordingly Misc. Civil Appeal No.290 of 2013 is restored. (iii) Petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to Pune District Court Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks 6) Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of in above terms. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 30 September 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/10/2026 16:14:14