Bombay High Court
SMT. SUSHILABAI J. PATWARDHAN (DEC) MR. MUKUND J. PATWARDHAN (DEC) T. L. H. MR. KAMAL M. PATWARDHANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU' THE SECRETARY
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The appeal was dismissed for default due to the appellant's non‑appearance, and the interim application for intervention was likewise disposed.
Summary
The appellants, heirs of the deceased owners of a parcel of land, filed an appeal against the State of Maharashtra. No counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants, and the court recorded their non‑appearance on several dates. The court concluded that the appellants were not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed it for default. An interim application seeking to intervene, alleging a tripartite agreement with CIDCO, was also filed but, with the main appeal dismissed, the interim application could not survive and was disposed of. The court indicated that any future steps for restoration of the land would be considered on merits if initiated.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal may proceed when the appellant fails to appear before the court.
- Whether an interim application for intervention can be entertained when the main appeal is dismissed for default.
Subjects
- default judgment
- interim application
- intervention
- tripartite agreement
- land ownership
- civil appeal
Judgment
LSP 1 1 983.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
First Appeal No. 983 of 2016
With
Civil Application No.1102 of 2015
Sushilabai J. Patwardhan
(deceased)
Mr Mukund J. Patwardhan
(deceased) through
Kamal M. Patwardhan … Appellants
V/s.
State of Maharashtra … Respondents.
With
Interim Application No.10023 of 2025
In
First Appeal No.983 of 2016
None for the Appellant.
Mr. A.R. Patil Addl.G.P. for the Respondent
No.1.
Mr. Rajendra Jain i/b. Mr. Vipul Advocate for
Patel Applicant/Intervenor in IA
10023/25.
Digitally
signed by
LATA
SUNIL
LATA SUNIL
PANJWANI
PANJWANI Date:
2026.09.24
Ms. Vinsha Acharya a/w. Mr. Advocate for the Respondents in
19:26:14
+0530
Pramil Lahigade IA 10023/25.
CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J
DATE : 24th September 2026.
P.C. :
1. No one is present on behalf of the Appellants who are the
LSP 2 1 983.16.doc
owners of the land. Heard learned AGP and learned Advocate for the
Applicant who is seeking impleadment in the appeal by way of
Interim Application No.10023/2025. Also heard learned Advocate
for the tenants who are impleaded in the present interim application
as per the order dated 24th March 2026.
2. The Applicants-Intervenors seek intervention because they
claim that there is a tripartite agreement in between them, the
tenants and the CIDCO. The original Appellants-owners of the land
were served by way of private publication as per the order dated 11 th
December 2025 passed in Interim Application No.38364/2025,
however, no one is present.
3. The notings dated 30th April 2026, 30th July 2026 and 27th
August 2026 record that no one is present on behalf of the
Appellants. It seems that the Appellants are not interested to
prosecute this appeal. Hence, it is dismissed for default. If steps are
taken for restoration, it will be considered on merits.
4. In view of that, present interim application for intervention
does not survive. It is also disposed of.
(S.M. MODAK, J.)
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.