Bombay High Court

SANGITA W/O APPA RANMARE AND OTHERSversusNAVNATH S/O RANGNATH HATAVATE AND ANOTHER

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Holding

The court allowed the civil applications under prayeer clause B, directing that the appeals be registered.

Summary

The petitioners, Mangal w/o Laxman Bahirwal and others, and Sangita w/o Appa Ranmare and others, filed civil applications before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, against respondents Subhash s/o Shivaji Gujar and Navnath s/o Rangnath Hatavate respectively. Service of notice was effected on respondent No.1, who failed to appear despite being served. The petitioners were represented by Mr. Swapnil S. Dargad, while respondent No.2 was represented by Mr. Aniruddha S. Usmanpurkar. The Court examined whether the applications could be disposed of in the absence of respondent No.1’s appearance and whether the service was sufficient. Relying on the provisions of the procedural rules (prayeer clause “B”), the Court allowed both civil applications. It directed that the appeals be registered accordingly. No substantive merits of the disputes were addressed beyond the procedural default.

Issues considered

Whether the civil applications may be allowed despite the non‑appearance of respondent No.1 after service of notice
Whether the service of notice complied with the procedural requirements

Subjects

Civil Procedure Code
Default judgment
Service of notice
High Court
Prayeer clause B

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38351
1 32-CA-12172-25.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

32 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12172 OF 2025
IN FAST/29656/2025

MANGAL W/O LAXMAN BAHIRWAL AND OTHERS
VERSUS
SUBHASH S/O SHIVAJI GUJAR AND ANOTHER.
...
33 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12174 OF 2025 IN FAST/29660/202325

SANGITA W/O APPA RANMARE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
NAVNATH S/O RANGNATH HATAVATE AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Swapnil S. Dargad
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Mr. Aniruddha S. Usmanpurkar
Respondent No.1 served
…

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 21-08-2026
PER COURT:-

1. Though served, none appeared for respondent No.1.

2. For the reasons stated in the applications, the civil

applications are allowed in terms of prayeer clause “B”. Office to

registere the appeals.

[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH]
JUDGE

rrd

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…