Bombay High Court

KHADYA VYANKAPPA SHETTI (THROU POA) LEELAVATI KHADYA SHETTIversusSMT.RUKMINI RAGHUNATH JAGDALE

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

The appellant, Khadya Vyankappa Shetti (through POA) and Leelavati Khadya Shetti, filed a second appeal against Smt. Rukmini Raghunath Jagdale. The appellant's counsel repeatedly sought instructions from his client but received none, rendering further prosecution of the appeal impossible. The respondent contended that the decree of possession had been executed and only the question of mesne profits remained, offering to consider a fair settlement which the appellant refused. The court noted that there were concurrent findings against the appellants, who were the original defendants in the trial court. Because the appellant's counsel had no instructions, the court dismissed the second appeal for want of prosecution and disposed of the accompanying civil applications.

Issues considered

Whether the second appeal can proceed in the absence of instructions to the appellant's counsel
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution

Subjects

civil appeal
want of prosecution
mesne profits
decree of possession
procedural dismissal

Judgment

                                                        32-SA-539-2018 (C).docx


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    SECOND APPEAL NO. 539 OF 2018
Khadya Vyankappa Shetti (throu Poa)
 Leelavati Khadya Shetti                                     ...Appellant
               VERSUS
Smt.rukmini Raghunath Jagdale                             ...Respondent
                                  WITH
                  CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1256 OF 2018
                                   IN
                    SECOND APPEAL NO. 539 OF 2018
Khadya Vyankappa Shetti (throu Poa)
Leelavati Khadya Shetti                                      ...Applicant
               VERSUS
Smt.rukmini Raghunath Jagdale                             ...Respondent
                              ——————
Mr. Dilip Bodake a/w. Mr. Vijay Dhumal, Advocate for Appellant
Ajit Kenjale (Through VC), Advocate for respondent.
                              ——————

                                 Coram :       RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

                                 Date      :   AUGUST 21, 2026.

P. C. :

1.        Mr. Bodake, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that

though he has repeatedly been contacting his client to obtain

instructions, his client is not giving him any instructions. Hence, it

would be difficult for him to proceed further with the Second

Appeal.

2.        Mr. Kejare, appearing through VC for the respondent, submits




adn                               1 of 2
                                                  32-SA-539-2018 (C).docx


that the decree of possession has already been executed. The only

issue that remains is that of “mesne profits”. He submits that his

client had fairly stated that if a fair offer is received from the

appellant, the same would be considered by his client. However, the

appellant has refused to make any offer.

3.    The fact remains that there are concurrent findings against the

appellants, who are the original defendants before the Trial Court.

In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the appellants has no

instructions, the Second Appeal stands dismissed for want of

prosecution. Consequently, the Civil Applications stand disposed of.



                                                 (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)




adn                            2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…