Bombay High Court

NARAYAN NATHU DEWARE.versusSITARAM GANPAT BADGUJAR.

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The appeal is dismissed for default due to failure to serve notice to the appellant.

Summary

The appellant, Narayan Nathu Deware, filed a second appeal against the respondents. The appellant's counsel was elevated to a judge, prompting a notice on 17 July 2023, which was reissued on 4 September 2023. The bailiff’s report indicated that the notice could not be served because the appellant did not reside at the address provided. The court held that the failure to serve notice amounted to a default. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed for default.

Issues considered

Whether the appeal can proceed when the appellant has not been properly served notice and is in default

Subjects

default judgment
service of notice
appellate procedure
civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38493


                                                        1                            16 sa.321.95.odt


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
                                 16 SECOND APPEAL NO. 321 OF 1995

                                   NARAYAN NATHU DEWARE
                                           VERSUS
                       SITARAM GANPAT BADGUJAR DECEASED THROUGH L.RS.
                            DURGABAI SITARAM BADGUJAR AND OTHERS

                                                   ...
               Advocate for Respondents : Mr. N. S. Raole, h/f Mr. V. J. Dixit.
                                                   ...


                                                 CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                                                 DATE       :   24th August, 2026.

               P.C.:

               1       The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has

               now been elevated as a Judge of this Court. Therefore, on 17 th July,

               2023, notice was issued to the appellant. On 4 th September, 2023,

               again notice was issued at Court motion to the appellant.


               2       The office note shows that the notice issued to the sole appellant

               has been returned unserved, as he is not residing at the given

               address, as per the bailiff’s report. Therefore, the appeal deserves to

               be dismissed for default.


               3       The second appeal is dismissed for default.



                                                        [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
         nga

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…