Bombay High Court

CHANDRABHAN NATHA MANE.versusPUNJABAI KISHANRAO JADHAV AND OTHERS.

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed because the underlying suit was withdrawn and disposed.

Summary

Chandrabhan Natha Mane filed a second appeal before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging a civil proceeding (Regular Darkhast No. 19 of 1995) that had been withdrawn by the appellants and disposed of on 11 September 1996. The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Dhananjay P. Deshpande, appeared, but no respondent counsel was present. The court examined the status report confirming the withdrawal and disposal of the underlying case. It held that, since the original suit was already terminated, there was no substantive ground to continue the appeal. Consequently, the court ordered the second appeal to be dismissed. The decision was delivered by Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh on 25 August 2026.

Issues considered

Whether a second appeal is maintainable when the underlying civil suit has been withdrawn and disposed.

Subjects

second appeal
withdrawal of suit
disposal of proceedings
maintainability
civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38536

sa35.94
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

908 SECOND APPEAL NO. 35 OF 1994

Chandrabhan Natha Mane
VERSUS
Punjabai Kishanrao Jadhav And Others
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Dhananjay P. Deshpande
…..

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 25th AUGUST, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. By an order dated 18.08.2026, this court has passed the

following order:-

“1 As per order of this Court dated 11th August,
2026, a status report has been filed. R. D. No.19 of 1995 in
the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Ambad, Tahsil
Ambad, District Jalna, is disposed of by order dated 11th
September, 1996, in view of the withdrawal pursis. Thus,
there is no substance in keeping this appeal for hearing as
already the execution proceedings arising out of same
litigation has been disposed of.

2 None present for the appellant.

3 Keep this appeal for dismissal on 25th August,
2026, first on board.”
sa35.94
-2-

2. Considering the status report of Regular Darkhast No. 19 of

1995 that it has been disposed of, by an order dated 11.09.1996, as

withdrawn by the appellants, the appeal deserves to be disposed of.

3. In view of the above and in view of disposal of the Regular

Darkhast No. 19 of 1995, the second appeal is accordingly disposed

of.

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

rlj/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…