Bombay High Court

NARSING BHAGWANDAS BANGversusSMITA NARSING BANG

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

Both appeals were dismissed for want of steps due to the appellant's non‑appearance and failure to file the private paper books.

Summary

The appellant, Narsing Bhagwandas Bang, filed two family court appeals (Nos. 78 and 79 of 2018) against Smita Narsing Bang. The High Court had earlier ordered that failure to file the private paper book would result in dismissal of the appeals. On 19 August 2026, the appellant did not appear before the court and had not filed the required private paper books. The judges observed that the appellant showed no interest in prosecuting the appeals. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed for want of steps.

Issues considered

What is the effect of non‑filing of the private paper book on pending family court appeals?
Does the appellant's failure to appear before the court constitute a waiver of the right to pursue the appeals?

Subjects

Family Court
Appeal
Procedural default
Private paper book
Dismissal for want of steps
Non‑appearance

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37427-DB

                                                                        941 fca 78-18 .




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        941 FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2018
                                        WITH
                          FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2018

                               NARSING BHAGWANDAS BANG
                                           VERSUS
                                   SMITA NARSING BANG
                                              ...
           Mr. Kshitij Surve, Advocate for Respondent
                                              ….

                                  CORAM       :   SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                  VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                                  Date        :   19/08/2026

          PER COURT :
          1.   None for the appellant.


          2.   By order dated 22.07.2026, passed in both these appeals, we had
          made it clear that in the event the private paper book was not filed by
          the appellant, both the appeals would be dismissed.


          3.   Today, none appeared for the appellant in either of these appeals
          and the private paper books have also not been filed.             In the
          circumstances, it appears that the appellant is not interested in
          prosecuting these appeals.      Accordingly, both the appeals stand
          dismissed for want of steps.




          [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]                    [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE]
                       JUDGE                               JUDGE

                  VS Maind/                                        Page|1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…