Created by Fuzzy Cloud

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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.