Bombay High Court
SMT.KALAVATI CHOTELAL SAKET CHOUDHARI AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution due to the appellant's failure to comply with the final deadline.
Summary
The appellants, Smt. Kalavati Chotelal Saket Choudhari and others, appealed against the Union of India (Central Railway). The High Court had previously granted a final extension of time for the appellants to file their paperbook, warning that no further time would be given. On the scheduled date, the appellant's counsel, Mr. Avadhut Bidaye, appeared but could not explain the absence of the co‑counsel, Mr. Vaneet Khosla. The Court noted that the earlier order had expressly stated that this was a last chance and no further adjournments would be permitted. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and disposed of any pending applications. The judgment underscores the strict adherence to procedural timelines in civil appellate matters.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate consequence when a party fails to comply with a final deadline for filing pleadings?
- Can the Court grant further time after expressly stating that no further time will be granted?
Subjects
- procedural law
- dismissal for want of prosecution
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- time adjournment
- high court
Judgment
1/2 8 FA-402-2018.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 402 OF 2018
Smt.Kalavati Chotelal Saket Choudhari & Others … Appellants
Vs.
Union of India through G.M., Central Railway … Respondent
_______
Mr. Avadhut Bidaye h/f Mr. Vaneet Khosla for Appellant.
Mr. Gautam Modanwal i/b Mr. T. J. Pandian for Respondent.
_______
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE : 7TH OCTOBER, 2026.
P.C.
1. This Court on the previous occasion had passed the following order :
“1. Today, Ms. Babar has appeared and sought time.
2. As and by way of last chance, time is granted.
3. Let the paperbook be served on the Advocate for the
Respondent before the next date.
4. Re-notify on 7th October, 2026. No further time will be
granted.”
2. Today, Mr. Bidaye appears and submits that he is holding for Mr. Khosla,
however, no reason was given to explain why Mr. Khosla was not available.
Sairaj
2/2 8 FA-402-2018.DOC
3. In the aforesaid Appeal, on the previous occasion, it was made expressly
clear that time was granted as and by way of last chance and no further time
will be granted.
4. Therefore, First Appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
5. In view of above, nothing survives for consideration in pending
Applications, if any, and the same stand disposed of.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)
Sairaj
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.