High Court of Gujarat

BALDEVBHAI KESHAVLAL SUTHAR (DECD)THROUGH SUBHADRABEN BALDversusKANTILAL AMBALAL SUTHAR

Disposal: 43-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ FH
Bench: C DOSHI

Holding

The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

The appellant, Baldevbhai Keshavlal Suthar (deceased) and five other co‑appellants, filed a second appeal against Kantilal Ambalal Suthar and another respondent. Notice of appearance was issued to the appellants, but appellant No.1 had died and appellants No.2‑6, although served, did not appear or file any response. The court observed that such conduct demonstrated a clear lack of prosecutorial intent. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal for want of prosecution. The interim relief previously granted was vacated and the record was ordered to be sent back to the lower court.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate consequence when an appellant fails to prosecute an appeal, including where an appellant has died?

Subjects

appealwant of prosecutioncivil proceduredismissalnon‑appearance

Judgment

         C/SA/110/2012                                                 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                           R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 110 of 2012

 ==========================================================
   BALDEVBHAI KESHAVLAL SUTHAR (DECD)THROUGH SUBHADRABEN
                          BALD & ORS.
                             Versus
                KANTILAL AMBALAL SUTHAR & ANR.
 ==========================================================
 Appearance:
 ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Appellant(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6
 UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
 DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
 MR GUNVANT R THAKAR(3801) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
 ==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                         Date : 20/01/2026

                                           ORAL ORDER


       Advocate’s notice was duly issued to the appellants. Upon
 service, it transpired that appellant No.1 has since expired, while
 appellant Nos.2 to 6, though duly served, have chosen not to enter
 appearance or respond to the proceedings. Such conduct
 unmistakably evinces a lack of prosecutorial intent on the part of the
 appellants.

        In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the Second Appeal
 stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Consequently, the interim
 relief, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated forthwith. The
 record and proceedings, if any, shall be transmitted back to the
 concerned Court below.

                                                                                    (J. C. DOSHI,J)
 MANISH MISHRA



Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MANISH MISHRA(HC01776), STENO GR II, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/01/2026 15:06:52




                                                Page 1 of 1

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "appeal"Sign in to search