Bombay High Court
RAVINDRA RAJARAM PATEKAR AND ANRversusLA HIRA DEVELOPERS THR. MRS. JAYMALA DYANESHWAR SHEDGE
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- M M SATHAYE
Holding
The appeal and the pending civil application were dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
The appellants, who were defendants in a suit, were restrained by an order dated 02.01.2019 from alienating constructed premises until the suit's disposal. The respondent's counsel later claimed the suit had been disposed of, leading to adjournments. The appellants later indicated they could not proceed without instructions and were granted leave to seek discharge. An interim application was filed seeking discharge, but the appellants failed to appear. The court observed that the appellants were not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed both the appeal and the pending civil application for want of prosecution, also disposing of the interim application.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate course of action when an appellant shows no interest in prosecuting an appeal?
Subjects
- dismissal for want of prosecution
- civil appeal
- interim application
- discharge from case
- non-prosecution
Judgment
14 AO-829-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
by
HUSENBASHA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN
NADAF
NADAF
Date:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2026.02.06
18:37:53
+0530
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 829 OF 2019
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 116 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 986 OF 2019
Ravindra Rajaram Patekar And Anr ....Appellants
V/s
La Hira Developers
Thr. Mrs. Jaymala Dyaneshwar Shedge ....Respondent
***
None for Appellants.
None for Respondent.
***
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 6th FEBRUARY, 2026
P.C. :
1. Perused the record. The Appellants are Defendants. By the
impugned order dated 02.01.2019, the Appellants are restrained
from alienating constructed premises in the suit property till disposal
of the suit.
2. On 15.03.2022, the Advocate for the Respondent/Plaintiff
made a statement in March 2022 itself suit has been disposed of.
Time was taken to verify the fact and matter was adjourned.
3. Thereafter, on 08.04.2022 the Advocate for the Appellants
expressed inability to address the Court for want of instructions and
leave was granted to adopt appropriate steps for discharge from the
Husen 1
14 AO-829-2019.doc
case.
4. Record further shows that pursuant to the said leave, Interim
Application No. 116 of 2026 has been filed by the concerned
Advocate - managing partner of NDB Law seeking discharge from the
case.
5. Today nobody is appearing for the Appellants.
6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears that the
Appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
7. Therefore AO/829/2019 and pending CA/986/2019 are
dismissed for want of prosecution.
8. In view of the disposal of the appeal, IA/116/2026 seeking
discharge, is also disposed of.
9. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this order.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Husen 2
Checking your session…