Bombay High Court

MR. GOPICHAND NARSU DABADE (DECEASED THR. LRs 1. SMT. PUSHPA GOPICHAND DABADE AND ORS)versusMR. PUNDALIK GANPAT DAMUGADE AND ORS.

Decided: 31 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

The appellants, represented by the heirs of the deceased Gopichand Narsu Dabade, filed a second civil appeal (ST) No. 21393 of 2016 before the Bombay High Court. Their counsel submitted a communication dated 7 May 2026 stating he had no instructions to prosecute the appeal, indicating the appellants had lost interest in pursuing it. The court examined whether an appeal can continue without active prosecution. Finding that the appeal was not being prosecuted, the court dismissed it for want of prosecution. No merits of the underlying dispute were considered.

Issues considered

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution

Subjects

appeal
prosecution
dismissal
civil procedure
want of prosecution

Judgment

Vaishnavi                                                 52-SA(ST)-21393-2016


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 21393 OF 2016
                                    WITH
                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 932 OF 2017

Mr.   Gopichand     Narsu     Dabade
(Deceased Through Lrs 1. Smt. Pushpa
Gopichand Dabade and Ors.)                              ...Appellants
                      V/s.
Mr. Pundalik Ganpat Damugade and
Ors.                                                   ...Respondents
                                 ________________
Mr. A.V. Hardas a/w Mr. Aaroh Kulkarni i/b Mr. Bhooshan Mandlik, for
Appellants.
Mr. Rohit Parab i/b Mr. C.G.Gavnekar, for Respondent No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7A to
7F.
                                 ________________
                                           CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                           DATED: 31 AUGUST 2026
P.C.:


1)          The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that he
has no instructions to prosecute the Appeal. He places on record copy of
communication dated 7 May 2026, by which intimation is given to the
Appellants. It appears that the Appellants have lost interest in
prosecuting the Appeal.

2)          The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed for want of
prosecution.


                                                     [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

                                    Page No.1 of 1
                                   31 August 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…