Bombay High Court
CAO/367/2026 of GUNWANTA BHASKARRAO CHATUR AND ANOTHER Vs ANNAPURNA @ ANUSAYA LAXMAN SOLANKE THR. LRS. DIGAMBAR LAXMANRAO SOLANKE AND OTHERS on 13 October 2026
367-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
1 / 2 22-cao 367-26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 367 OF 2026
IN
M.C.A.ST. NO.28613 OF 2025
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO. 36 OF 2013(d)
Gunwanta Bhaskarrao Chatur and anr.
Vs.
Annapurna @ Anusaya Laxman Solanke through LRS and ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.A.M.Ghare, counsel for the applicants.
Mr.P.B.Patil, counsel for the non-applicants.
CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 13/10/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The applicants have filed the present applications seeking condonation of delay of 597 days in filing the application for restoration of the appeal and for restoration of the appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that, owing to the lapse on the part of the earlier advocate, the appeal came to be dismissed. It was further submitted that the appeal had reached the stage of final hearing and that the learned counsel appearing for the applicants is ready to file the Vakalatnama and argue the matter finally, if the appeal is restored. Kavita
2 / 2 22-cao 367-26
3. The learned counsel for the non-applicants opposed the applications, submitting that the appeal had earlier been dismissed in the year 2016 and was subsequently restored subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. However, despite its restoration, the appeal was again dismissed for default. It was further submitted that the appellants has been in possession of the property since 2002 and has been delaying the execution proceedings. On these grounds, the learned counsel prayed for rejection of the applications.
4. Heard both the learned counsel. Considering the reasons stated in the applications, same are allowed and the delay of 597 days in filing the restoration application is condoned, subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the learned counsel for the respondents and the appeal is restored to its original stage.
5. Applicants stand disposed of. SECOND APPEAL NO. 36 OF 2013
Stand over after Diwali Vacations for Final Hearing.
JUDGE Kavita Signed by: Kavita P Tayade Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 14/10/2026 11:27:52