Bombay High Court
SHRI. RAM KRISHNA BATESHWAR SHUKLAversusMUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
The appellant failed to appear before the court on the scheduled date, leading the court to keep the matter for dismissal. The appellant also did not appear on the subsequent date. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, any interim relief previously granted was vacated, and the associated civil application was disposed of. No substantive merits of the case were addressed. The order was pronounced by Justice Jitendra Jain.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate consequence when an appellant fails to appear and prosecute the appeal?
Subjects
- appeal
- want of prosecution
- dismissal
- interim relief
- civil application
- vacated
Judgment
ppn 1 11.fa-1618-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
by PRACHI
PRACHI PRANESH
PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR
Date: 2026.01.17 FIRST APPEAL NO.1618 OF 2019
13:18:12 +0530
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2678 OF 2014
Ram Krishna Bateshwar Shukla …Appellant
V/s.
Mumbai Metropolitan Region
Development Authority & Anr. .…Respondents
----
None for the Appellant.
Ms. Priya Roharia i/by The Law Point for respondent no.1.
----
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 17th January 2026
P.C. :
1. On 8 January 2026, none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, the
matter was kept today for ‘dismissal.’ Today also, there is no appearance on
behalf of the appellant.
2. Appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim relief, if any,
stands vacated. Civil application, if any, does not survive and is accordingly
disposed of.
(JITENDRA JAIN, J.)
Checking your session…