Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

MARUTI MAHADU KAPURE.versusMUNCIPAL COUNCIL,NANDED THRO.CHIEF OFFICER.

Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

An appeal can be dismissed in default where the appellant, through his advocate, fails to prosecute the proceeding.

Summary

The appellant, Maruti Mahadu Kapure, filed a second appeal (SA No. 32 of 1994) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The court ordered on 17 August 2026 that the appeal be kept for dismissal on 25 August 2026 because the appellant's counsel had not taken necessary steps concerning the deceased sole appellant. No party appeared on the scheduled date, and again on 3 September 2026 when the matter was listed. The court observed that the appellant's advocate had lost interest in prosecuting the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in default for want of prosecution, and the pending civil applications were also disposed of.

Issues considered

  • Whether an appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution when the appellant fails to appear and the counsel does not take necessary steps

Subjects

  • appeal
  • default dismissal
  • procedural law
  • civil procedure
  • court jurisdiction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42114


                                                                  907 SA NO. 32 OF 1994.odt


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                 907 SECOND APPEAL NO. 32 OF 1994

                                     Maruti Mahadu Kapure.
                                             VERSUS
                            Muncipal Council,nanded Thro.chief Officer.
                                                ...
                 Mr. M. D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                              WITH
                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3795 OF 2014 IN SA/32/1994
                                               ….

                                      CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                                        DATE : 10.09.2026
                 PER COURT :-

                 1.           By order dated 17.08.2026, this Court kept the Appeal

                 for dismissal on 25.08.2026, as the learned Advocate for the

                 Appellant had not taken necessary steps in respect of the deceased

                 sole Appellant. However, on 25.08.2026, none appeared for the

                 Appellant. Thereafter, on 03.09.2026, the Appeal was listed for

                 today. Even today, when the matter is called out, none appears for

                 the Appellant.     It appears that the learned Advocate for the

                 Appellant has lost interest in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the

                 Appeal is dismissed in default for want of prosecution. Pending

                 Civil Applications stand disposed of.



                                                         [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]


                 HRJadhav                                                          1 of 1


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.