Bombay High Court

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSHRI REMOND RUJOY GODDARD

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The appeal is abated and disposed of because the deceased respondent was not represented.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed a judgment and decree dated 27 October 1999 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadhinglaj in Special Civil Suit No. 104 of 1996. The appeal was filed by the State (appellant) against Shri Remond Rujoy Goddard and others (respondents). During the hearing, counsel for Respondent No. 1 informed the court that he was deceased and that no legal representatives had been brought on record. The appellant’s counsel and the counsel for Respondents 2B‑2E concurred with this statement. On the basis that the deceased party had not been substituted by any representative, the court held that the appeal could not proceed and disposed of it as abated.

Issues considered

Whether the death of a party without substitution of legal representatives abates a pending appeal
Whether the appeal can be maintained in the absence of representation for the deceased respondent

Subjects

appeal
abated appeal
death of party
substitution of legal representatives
civil procedure

Judgment

907-FA-623-2002.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 623 OF 2002
The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant
Versus
Shri Remond Rujoy Goddard And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 7727 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 623 OF 2002
The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector Kolhapur ...Appellant
Versus
Ramond Rujoy Goddard And Ors. ...Respondents
_______________________________________________________________
Dr. A. A. Takalkar, AGP for the Appellant.
Mr. Anand Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Rishikesh Mohite a/w Nikhil Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the
Respondent No. 2B to E.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 10th September, 2026.
P.C. :

1. This Appeal is of the year 2002.

2. By the present Appeal, the Appellant has impugned Judgment

and Decree dated 27.10.1999, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Gadhinglaj, in Special Civil Suit No. 104 of 1996.

Arjun 1
907-FA-623-2002.docx

3. Mr. Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 1,

submits that the Respondent No. 1 is deceased. He states that no steps

have been taken to bring the legal representatives of the deceased

Respondent No. 1, on record and as such, the Appeal would stand

abated.

4. Dr. A. A. Takalkar, learned AGP for the Appellant and Mr.

Rishikesh Mohite, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2B to 2E,

confirm the statement made by Mr. Anand Patil, learned Advocate for

the Respondent No. 1.

5. In view of the statement made by Mr. Anand Patil, learned

Advocate for the Respondent No. 1, this Appeal is disposed of as abated.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
ARJUN KRISHNA
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE Date:
2026.09.15
14:31:26
+0530

Arjun 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…