Bombay High Court
SHRI. NATWAR NAGJIBHAI PAREKH (DELETED SINCE DECEASED) THR. L.R.S.1A)MRS.RASILA NATVAR PAREKHversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- ARIF S DOCTOR
Holding
The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
The appellants, Natwar Nagjibhai Parekh (deceased) and Mrs. Rasila Natvar Parekh, appealed against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The trial court had earlier adjourned the matter on 27 January 2026, noting that the parties were not ready. The appellants later claimed that their paper book was misplaced and sought further adjournment. The bench held that the appellant had ample time since the earlier order to organize its case and that the reason given was insufficient. Consequently, the court concluded that the appellant was not earnest in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed it for want of prosecution.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate basis for granting an adjournment when the appellant claims misplacement of its paper book?
Subjects
- adjournment
- want of prosecution
- civil appeal
- procedural law
- case management
Judgment
1/2 58-FA-307-2011 (C).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 307 OF 2011
Shri. Natwar Nagjibhai Parekh (deleted Since Deceased)
Thr. L.R.S.1A) Mrs. Rasila Natvar Parekh ...Appellants
Versus
The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai And Anr ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Sahil Salvi a/w Mr. Manohar Shelar i/b Mr. Omar Khaiyan Shaikh for the
Appellant.
Mr. Jash Saigal i/b Mr. Piyush Shah for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
Mr. Pradeep M. for Respondent-BMC.
_______
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2026
P.C.
1. This Court had on 27th January, 2026 passed the following order:
“1. The learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents jointly seek
time. This matter is of the year 2011. The Court has specifically kept this
matter in the afternoon session for final hearing so that the old matters can
be taken up and disposed of.
2. Inspite of the notice of the same, today the parties are not ready and seek
time on some or the other grounds.
3. The matter is adjourned not at the behest of the the Court but at the
behest of the parties and their advocates.
4. Let this matter come up for hearing in its regular course.”
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the paper book has been
misplaced by the Appellant and thus seeks time.
Areeb
2/2 58-FA-307-2011 (C).DOC
3. I do not find this to be sufficient ground to grant an adjournment,
particularly in light of what has been recorded in the order extracted above. The
Appellant had more than sufficient time since 27 th January, 2026 to put its
affairs in order.
4. It is therefore clear that the Appellant is not desirous of prosecuting the
Appeal. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution.
[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]
Areeb
Checking your session…