Bombay High Court
SHRI. POPAT MOTIRAM BHALERAOversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ABHAY AHUJA
Holding
The appeal is dismissed for non‑appearance and failure to proceed.
Summary
The appellant, the legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Fulyabai Trimbak Jadhav, filed a first appeal against the State of Maharashtra concerning a land acquisition matter. The High Court scheduled hearings and warned that the appeal would be dismissed if the appellant failed to appear or proceed. Despite previous warnings, counsel for the appellant repeatedly sought further time and did not appear ready to proceed. The court reiterated its warning and, upon another request for time, decided to dismiss the appeal for non‑appearance. Consequently, the first appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the First Appeal should be dismissed for the appellant's failure to appear or proceed on the scheduled dates
Subjects
- civil procedure
- appeal
- dismissal for non-appearance
- land acquisition
- high court
Judgment
15-FA-1606-2013.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
by KANCHAN
KANCHAN PRASHANT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRASHANT DHURI
DHURI Date:
2026.04.09 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1606 OF 2013
13:27:40 +0530
Smt. Fulyabai Trimbak Jadhav,
since deceased through her legal heirs … Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra (through The
Special Land Acquisition Officer) and another … Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1607 OF 2013
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1608 OF 2013
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1609 OF 2013
………...
Ms. Bhavna Khemani (through VC), Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. A.R. Patil, Additional Government Pleader for the State.
………...
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 8 APRIL 2026
P.C. :
1. Ms. Khemani, learned Counsel, appears for the Appellant
through video-conferencing and seeks some more time today.
2. This Court has drawn Ms. Khemani’s attention to the order
dated 3rd February 2026, which reads thus :
Kanchan Dhuri 1/2
15-FA-1606-2013.doc
“1. Ms. Khemani, learned counsel, appears for the
Appellants and submits that some time be granted to
trace the papers.
2. It is observed that on 17th November 2025
none had appeared for the Appellants and the
learned AGP appearing then for the State submitted
that the matters are ripe for final hearing.
3. It was made clear that if none appears for the
Appellants on the next date, this Court will consider
dismissing the First Appeals.
4. Today time is being sought on behalf of the
Appellants.
5. List on 25th March 2026.
6. It is made clear that if none appears for the
Appellants or none is ready to go on, on behalf of
the Appellants on the next date, this Court will
consider dismissing the First Appeals.”
3. Despite that Ms. Khemani insists on seeking time.
4. It had been made clear on the last occasion that if none
appears for the Appellants or none is ready to go on, on behalf of the
Appellants on the next date, this Court would consider dismissing the
First Appeal.
5. Accordingly, the First Appeal stands dismissed, since Ms.
Khemani is once again seeking time and not ready to go on.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
Kanchan Dhuri 2/2
Checking your session…