Bombay High Court
Yogeshwar Machinary And Agro Services ... vs Alkabai Shivnath Mule And Another on 25 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:11231
Dilwale 1 58-WP-7580-17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
58 WRIT PETITION NO. 7580 OF 2017
Yogeshwar Machinary & Agro Services, }
Through, it's proprietor, }
Rameshwar s/o Ashok Bhore, }
Age: 25 Years Occ: Business }
R/o : New Mondha Jalna-Beed Road, }
Near ICICI Bank Ambad, }
Tq. Ambad Dist. Jalna }Petitioner
Versus
1. Alkabai w/o Shivnath Mule, }
Age: 45 Years Occ: Agri }
R/o : Bhalgaon }
Tq. Ambad Dist. Beed }
2. The Branch Manager, }
Canada Bank, Branch Ambad }
In front of Bus Stand Ambad, }
Tq. Ambad Dist. Jalna }
Respondents
...
Mr. Yogesh R. Bobade : Advocate for the petitioner
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 25.02.2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties at the stage of admission.
2. By way of the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 07/10/2016 passed by the learned Presiding Member, Dilwale 2 58-WP-7580-17 Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad in Appeal Stamp Nos. 390/2016 and 391/2016, whereby the appeals filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. The learned Presiding Member, while passing the impugned order, observed that the petitioner had not complied with the office objections since 29/08/2016 and on 27/09/2016 none appeared for the appellant. It was further observed that the statutory amount was not deposited and, therefore, the appeals came to be rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not deliberately caused delay in removing the office objections. It is submitted that due to heavy workload and financial loss suffered in business, the petitioner could not immediately deposit the statutory amount. It is further submitted that the learned advocate for the petitioner was not aware of the earlier date of listing and, therefore, could not remain present. The advocate had mentioned the matter on 07/10/2016 in the afternoon session; however, by that time, the impugned order had already been passed. It is pointed out that the petitioner had in fact deposited the statutory amount on 06/10/2016, i.e. prior to the passing of the impugned order.
5. Considering the explanation given by the learned advocate for the petitioner/original complainant and also the documents placed on record, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to follow the course adopted in Dilwale 3 58-WP-7580-17 the previous orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5421/2015 and connected matters (P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shivaji Gangadhar Kadam and another), Writ Petition No. 3985/2012 (Miss. Radhika Rajesh Mandhani Vs. Dr. Dilip Patwardhan & Another), Writ Petition No. 2811/2015 (The Branch Manager State Bank of India Vs. Dharmaraj Chindha Patil), Writ Petition No. 531/2014 (Mr. Kapurchand Kotecha Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. and another vs. Mangilal Bhikachand Jain) and Arun Sudamrao Modale vs. Sangameshwar Tractor Authorized Dealer Ahmedpur and another, 2014(4) Mh.L.J. 757.
6. It is well settled that matters should ordinarily be decided on merits rather than on technical grounds. Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution, particularly when statutory amount has already been deposited prior to the order, would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. The explanation offered does not appear to be malafide or intentional so as to permanently non-suit the petitioner.
7. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 07/10/2016 passed by the learned Presiding Member, Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad in Complaint Case Nos. 390/2016 and 391/2016 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 07/10/2016 passed by the learned Dilwale 4 58-WP-7580-17 Presiding Member, Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad in Appeal Stamp Nos. 390/2016 and 391/2016 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Appeal Stamp Nos. 390/2016 and 391/2016 are restored to their original file and number.
(iv) The petitioner shall remove office objections, if any, within a period of two weeks from today.
(v) The learned Commission shall decide the appeals on their own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by dismissal order dated 07/10/2016.
(vi) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(vii) Pending Civil Applications, if any stand disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE