Friday, 01, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Rahuldeo S/O Devidas Patole ... vs Manisha W/O Rahuldeo Patole ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3103 Bom

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 3103 Bom
Judgement Date : 22 June, 2016

Bombay High Court
Rahuldeo S/O Devidas Patole ... vs Manisha W/O Rahuldeo Patole ... on 22 June, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
                                                     *1*                       901.cr.wp.1438.15


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                                   
                         CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1438 OF 2015




                                                           
    Rahuldeo s/o Devidas Patole (Patil),
    Age : 30 years, Occupation : Nil,
    Residing at Darshan Vihar House No.9,




                                                          
    Near Deshmukh Hospital,
    Beed Bye Pass, Satara Area,
    Aurangabad.
                                                            ...PETITIONER
              -VERSUS-




                                               
    1         Manisha w/o Rahuldeo Patole (Patil),
                                     
              nee Manisha d/o Tejrao Mankape,
              Age : 26 years, Occupation : Service,
              R/o c/o Tejrao Sonaji Mankape,
                                    
              Mirajgave Vishwanagari, House No.C-28,
              Devlai Road, Aurangabad.

    2         The State of Maharashtra.
       

                                                            ...RESPONDENTS
    



                                              ...
                        Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Surve Hemant. 
                     APP for Respondent No.2/ State : Shri S.G.Karlekar. 
                     Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Smt.R.V.Ghule-Palve.





                                              ...

                                           CORAM:  RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATE :- 22nd June, 2016

Oral Judgment :

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

                                                     *2*                         901.cr.wp.1438.15


    2              I have heard Shri Surve, learned Advocate for the Petitioner 




                                                                                    

and Mrs.Ghule-Palve, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, for quite

sometime.

3 A short issue has been raised for consideration of this Court.

4 Criminal Appeal No.148/2013 was filed by the present

Respondent No.1 against the Petitioner and few other persons. By order

dated 06.10.2015, the Criminal Appeal was dismissed in default. An

application dated 16.10.2015 was filed by the present Respondent No.1

which was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.244/2015.

Needless to state, the said application for restoration was filed within 30

days from the date of the dismissal of the appeal in default.

5 The issue is as to whether, the Respondents in appeal, who

were non-applicants in the application for restoration, are required to be

heard before restoring the appeal.

6 Shri Surve, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, has made a

solemn statement that the Petitioner had appeared in Criminal Appeal

No.148/2013 and the Roznama in the said proceedings would indicate

that the notice was served on the Petitioner. He further submits that the

*3* 901.cr.wp.1438.15

notice was issued to all the Respondents in the appeal as is evident from

the order appearing on the cause title of the criminal appeal. The notice

was made returnable on 21.08.2013. Similarly, on 21.08.2013 the learned

Sessions Judge directed calling of the record and proceedings.

7 Shri Surve, therefore, submits that notwithstanding whether,

any respondent in the appeal has appeared before the Sessions Judge or

not, the fact remains that the notice was issued to the respondents in the

appeal. He hastens to clarify at the cost of repetition that the Petitioner

had appeared in the appeal.

8 Mrs.Ghule-Palve, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2,

strenuously supported the impugned order. The contention is that none

had appeared in the appeal. There was no requirement to hear the

respondents in the appeal when it comes to deciding the criminal

miscellaneous application for restoration of the appeal.

9 I am unable to accept the contentions of Mrs.Ghule-Palve.

10 It appears that as the notice was issued by the learned

Sessions Judge, all the respondents in the criminal appeal were sought to

be made aware of the pending proceedings. The Petitioner submits that he

*4* 901.cr.wp.1438.15

had appeared in the proceedings. In this backdrop, in my view, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge could not have allowed the application for

restoration ex-parte and that too by passing an unreasoned cryptic order.

11 In the light of the above, this Criminal Writ Petition is

allowed. The impugned order dated 20.10.2015 is quashed and set aside.

12 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.244/2015 is restored

to the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad for

deciding it afresh. It is expected that after issuance of notice by the

learned Sessions Judge to all the Non-Applicants, the said application will

be decided on it's own merits.

           13                Rule is made absolute in the above terms.





    kps                                                            (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)






 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter