Bombay High Court

VIJAYABAI HIMMATRAO SHAHANEversusGOPALKRUSHNA DUDHA UTPADAK SAHAKARI SO AMALNER AND ROS

Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: PRADEEP B GHUGE REGISTRAR JUDL

Holding

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to appear or take any steps to prosecute the matter.

Summary

The appellant, Vijayabai Himmatrao Shahane, filed a second appeal but failed to appear before the Court. The advocate for the appellant informed the Court that the appellant was not responding and could not be located at the given address. The Court issued a notice, which was returned marked that the appellant did not reside at the stated address. No further steps were taken by the appellant to prosecute the appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal for want of appropriate steps by the appellant.

Subjects

civil procedure
default
appeal dismissal

Judgment

                                  1

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

              21. SECOND APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2009

  VIJAYABAI HIMMATRAO SHAHANE THR P.O.A. ASHOK GULABRAO
                       VINCHURKAR
                            VS
  GOPALKRUSHNA DUDHA UTPADAK SAHAKARI SO. AMALNER AND
                           ORS.

                                           CORAM: P. B. GHUGE
                                           REGISTRAR (JUDL)
                                           DATE :   18 / 03 /2026



            None present.       The Advocate representing sole

appellant made statement before the Hon’ble Court that the sole

appellant is not responding. In view of the same, Court notice was

issued. However, the same is returned with endorsement that sole

appellant is not residing on given address. No steps are taken to

prosecute the matter. It appears that the appellant is not interested

to proceed. Hence, Appeal stands dismissed for want of appropriate

steps.

                                              REGISTRAR (JUDL.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…