Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

PRAKASH NARAYANDAS RIZWANIversusMARUTI MAHADU KAPURE AND ANOTHER

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

An appeal can be dismissed in default for want of prosecution when the appellant and counsel fail to appear and no steps are taken to advance the matter.

Summary

The appellant, Maruti Mahadu Kapure, filed a second appeal (SA No. 32 of 1994) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The court ordered on 17 August 2026 that the appeal be kept for dismissal on 25 August 2026 because the appellant's counsel had not taken necessary steps concerning the deceased sole appellant. Neither the appellant nor the counsel appeared on the scheduled date, and again failed to appear when the matter was listed on 3 September 2026. The bench observed that the appellant's advocate had lost interest in prosecuting the case. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal in default for want of prosecution and also disposed of the pending civil applications.

Issues considered

  • Whether an appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution when the appellant fails to appear before the court

Subjects

  • appeal
  • default dismissal
  • procedural law
  • civil procedure
  • court jurisdiction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42115


                                                                  907 SA NO. 32 OF 1994.odt


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                 907 SECOND APPEAL NO. 32 OF 1994

                                     Maruti Mahadu Kapure.
                                             VERSUS
                            Muncipal Council,nanded Thro.chief Officer.
                                                ...
                 Mr. M. D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                              WITH
                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3795 OF 2014 IN SA/32/1994
                                               ….

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

                 1.           By order dated 17.08.2026, this Court kept the Appeal

                 for dismissal on 25.08.2026, as the learned Advocate for the

                 Appellant had not taken necessary steps in respect of the deceased

                 sole Appellant. However, on 25.08.2026, none appeared for the

                 Appellant. Thereafter, on 03.09.2026, the Appeal was listed for

                 today. Even today, when the matter is called out, none appears for

                 the Appellant.     It appears that the learned Advocate for the

                 Appellant has lost interest in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the

                 Appeal is dismissed in default for want of prosecution. Pending

                 Civil Applications stand disposed of.



                                                         [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]


                 HRJadhav                                                          1 of 1


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.