Bombay High Court

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ( M S R T C ) NASHIKversusLAXMAN HARI PRADHAN

Decided: 2 February 2026
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: R M JOSHI

Holding

The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution due to the appellant's non‑appearance.

Summary

The Divisional Manager of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation filed an appeal but failed to appear before the court, and no counsel was engaged on its behalf. The respondent, Laxman Hari Pradhan, was represented by Ms. Rupa J. Singh through Mr. Rajan S. Pawar. The court noted that even on the last date of hearing, the appellant did not cause any appearance. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. No substantive merits of the case were considered.

Issues considered

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

Subjects

appeal dismissed
want of prosecution
non‑appearance
civil appellate jurisdiction
Bombay High Court

Judgment

                                                                             66 FA 1058-22-C.DOC




                                                                                     Priya Soparkar


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                       FIRST APPEAL NO.1058 OF 2022

                      Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road              …Appellant
                      Transport Corporation (MSRTC)
                             Versus
                      Laxman Hari Pradhan                                     …Respondent


                      None for the Appellant.
                      Ms. Rupa J. Singh i/by Mr. Rajan S. Pawar, for the Respondent.


                                           CORAM:          R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                           DATED:          2nd FEBRUARY, 2026.
                      PC:-


                      1.     None for the Appellant.

                      2.     Even on the last date of hearing, none has caused
                      appearance on behalf of the Appellant.

                      3.     Hence, appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution.



                                                                             (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
                                                                                                  {




PRIYA
RAJESH
SOPARKAR
Digitally signed by
PRIYA RAJESH
SOPARKAR
Date: 2026.02.04
11:49:11 +0530


                                                      Page 1 of 1
                                                 nd
                                                2 February, 2026.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…