Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8473 (BOM)

RAMLAL KESHARCHAND LODHA DIED THR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE PUSHPAWATI AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS

CA/10331/2026 · 2026-09-11

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 961...odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10331 OF 2026 IN WP/7767/2025 RAMLAL KESHARCHAND LODHA DIED THR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE PUSHPAWATI AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Sachin Bhalerao h/f. Mr. Kale Ajeet B. AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Ms. Preeti Diggikar Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Mr. S.S. Dange Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 : Mr. I.K. Wagh … CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The Petitioners are seeking restoration of the Writ Petition by recalling the order passed by this Court on 28.04.2026. 2. According to the Applicants, a conditional order came to be passed by this Court on 28.04.2026, granting a period of four weeks to take steps, failing which, the Petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. It is submitted that pursuant to the conditional order passed by this Court on 28.04.2026, the Applicants have supplied copies diligently for effecting service on the Respondents. 2026:BHC-AUG:42274 2 961...odt The Applicants submit that later the Applicants were informed that the copies supplied by the Applicants were not received by Respondent nos. 5 to 7, as they were not residing on the given address as mentioned in the bailiff report. 3. It is submitted that failure of service upon Respondent nos. 5 to 7, was neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, the Applicants were completely unaware about the dismissal of the Writ Petition. The Applicants undertake to supply the correct address of Respondent nos. 5 to 7, forthwith to take necessary steps for service on these Respondents. 4. The prayer of the Petitioners is opposed by the learned Advocate appearing for Respondent nos. 5 to 7, who opposes the Writ Petition. 5. Considering the valuable rights of the Petitioners involved in the Writ Petition, the order of dismissal passed by this Court on 28.04.2026, is recalled. The Writ Petition is restored to its file. 6. In view of the aforementioned statements made in the Application, the Civil Application deserves to be allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the Respondents nos. 5 to 7, to be paid within the period of two weeks. 3 961...odt 7. As a result of restoration of Writ Petition, the interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2025, is also restored till the listing of the Writ Petition. 8. List the Writ Petition on 06.10.2026. ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ) SPC