Bombay High Court

KASHIBA GANGARAM DHANGAR.versusVIJAY MADHAVRAO NAIK and OTHERS.

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court dismissed the civil application and the second appeal for want of prosecution due to the appellant's failure to act.

Summary

The appellant, Kashiba Gangaram Dhangar, failed to take necessary steps in his second appeal despite several opportunities granted by the court. A civil application seeking a stay of execution of the impugned judgment had been pending for more than 32 years without any prosecution by the applicant. The court observed the prolonged inaction and held that the application must be disposed of for want of prosecution. Accordingly, the civil application was dismissed for non‑prosecution. The second appeal (No. 161 of 1993) was also dismissed, and the court ordered that another pending appeal (No. 281 of 2004) be tagged with the present appeals and listed for final hearing on 24‑09‑2026.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate consequence when a party fails to prosecute a civil application or appeal for an extended period?
Can a court dismiss a stay application for want of prosecution after a delay of over three decades?

Subjects

civil procedure
non‑prosecution
dismissal
stay of execution
delay
court discretion

Judgment

                                               904 SA NO. 161 OF 1993.odt


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD
             904 SECOND APPEAL NO. 161 OF 1993

                   Kashiba Gangaram Dhangar.
                              VERSUS
                Vijay Madhavrao Naik And Others.
                                 ...
Mr. A. R. Lukhe h/f Mr. S. K. Shelke., Advocate for Appellant
Mr. S. Y. Mahajan, Advocate for Respondents
                               WITH
             SECOND APPEAL NO. 280 OF 2004WITH
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1448 OF 1993 IN SA/161/1993WITH
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1447 OF 1993 IN SA/160/1993WITH
                SECOND APPEAL NO. 279 OF 2004
                                ….

                   CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                      DATE : 10.09.2026
PER COURT :-

SECOND APPEAL NO. 161 OF 1993

1.        Learned Advocate for the Appellant has not taken

necessary steps in the matter, despite several opportunities having

been granted.

2.        Keep this appeal for dismissal on 24.09.2026 at 10:30

a.m.


CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1448 OF 1993 IN SA/161/1993

1.        This is an application seeking stay to the execution of

the impugned judgment and order.



                                                                1 of 2
                                      (( 2 ))     904 SA NO. 161 OF 1993


2.         The application has been pending for more than 32 years.

Despite such a long period, the applicant has not taken necessary

steps for its prosecution. In view of the same, the application deserves

to be disposed of for want of prosecution. Accordingly, the application

is disposed of for non-prosecution.


SECOND APPEAL NO. 279 OF 2004


1.         Learned Advocate for the Appellant prays that Second

Appeal No.281 of 2004 be tagged with the present Appeal. He seeks

time.

2.         Second Appeal No.281 of 2004 be tagged with the present

Second appeals and listed on 24.09.2026 for final hearing.



                                        [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]




HRJadhav                                                          2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…