Bombay High Court
SHRINIWAS SOUNDRA PANDIANversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI THROUGH ITS HEAD OFFICE AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
The appellant, Shriniwas Soundra Pandian, filed an appeal against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai challenging a 2019 auction notice. The appellant's counsel, Mr. A. P. Khandari, returned the appeal papers to the appellant several years ago and reported that he was no longer in contact with the appellant. No new advocate was engaged to prosecute the appeal, and the appellant failed to appear when the matter was listed. The court held that the appeal had become infructuous and dismissed it for want of prosecution. Consequently, any interim relief previously granted was vacated and the interim application did not survive.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of non‑prosecution of an appeal on its continuance?
- Does an appeal become infructuous if the appellant fails to appear and no counsel is engaged?
Subjects
- appeal
- want of prosecution
- procedural default
- auction notice
- municipal corporation
- civil appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
8-FA-44-21.doc
rsk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.44 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.227 of 2021
Shriniwas Soundra Pandian ...Appellant
Vs
Municipal Corporation Of Greater
Mumbai Through Its Head Office And Ors. ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________
Mr. A. P. Khandari for the Appellant.
Ms. Pallavi Khale i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for the Respondent.
_____________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 04 MARCH 2026
P. C.:
1. On 25 February 2026 none appeared for the appellant. Therefore
the matter was listed today for dismissal.
2. Today, Mr. Khanduri, learned counsel for the appellant appears
and states that he has returned the appeal papers 3-4 years back to the
appellant and he is not in touch with the appellant. He further states
that prima facie this appeal has become infructuous because it
challenges the auction notice of 2019.
3. It appears that the appellants have not engaged new advocate
Digitally
signed by
inspite of Mr. Khanduri returning the papers.
RAJESHWARI
RAJESHWARI SUBODH
SUBODH KARVE
KARVE Date:
2026.03.04
4. In view of above, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
17:20:01
+0530
Interim relief, if any stands vacated. Interim Applications does not
survive.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
1 of 1
Checking your session…