Bombay High Court
SHRI SHAMRAO MAHADEO PATILversusSHRI PANDURANG DNYANU LINGADE
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution due to the appellant's and counsel's failure to appear.
Summary
The appeal, originally filed in 2002, challenges a 1993 MACT award of Rs. 50,000 to the respondents. The appellant, Shamrao Mahadeo Patil, failed to appear in court on the scheduled date, neither in person nor via video conference, and his advocate was also absent. The court noted the absence of both parties and their counsel and, after giving an opportunity to appear on a later date, found no representation. Consequently, the court exercised its power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The appeal was therefore dismissed, leaving the MACT award in force.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant and counsel fail to appear.
Subjects
- appeal
- non-prosecution
- dismissal
- civil procedure
- MACT award
- compensation
Judgment
905 - FA - 343 - 2002.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
VAIBHAV
RAMESH
JADHAV
Digitally signed by
FIRST APPEAL NO. 343 OF 2002
VAIBHAV RAMESH
JADHAV
Date: 2026.09.24
17:52:47 +0530
Shamrao Mahadeo Patil … Appellant
V/s.
Pandurang Dnyanu Lingade & Ors. … Respondents
None for the Appellant.
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 24, 2026
P.C.:
1. This Appeal is pending since the year 2002.
2. On 10th September 2026, the following order was passed:
“1. This Appeal is of the year 2002.
2. Today, when this Appeal was called out, neither the Appellant,
Respondents, nor the Advocates for the parties were present in Court either
physically or through VC mode.
3. To afford an opportunity to the Appellant / Respondents / Advocates
for the parties to appear and argue the case, list this Appeal on 24.09.2026,
under the caption “For Disposal”, on the Supplementary Board.”
3. Today, when this matter was called out, the name of the
Appellant and the name of the Advocate on record for the Appellant
were called out by the Court Sheristedar. None appears either physically
or through V.C. mode.
4. Perused the records placed before me.
VRJ 1
905 - FA - 343 - 2002.docx
5. By the present Appeal, the Appellant, that is, the original
Opponent No. 1 in MACT Petition No. 126 of 1985, has assailed the
judgment and award dated 8th October 1993 by which the MACT,
Kolhapur, has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding
compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
6. In view of the absence of the Appellant / Advocate for the
Appellant, as also the Respondent, this Court is left with no option but
to dismiss this Appeal for non-prosecution.
7. First Appeal No. 343 of 2002 is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
VRJ 2
Checking your session…