Bombay High Court

SMT. INDIRA GANDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.versusKOHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The second appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

The appellant, Indira Gandhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, filed a suit that was dismissed by the trial court. An appeal against that dismissal was also dismissed, leading the appellant to file a second appeal. Despite being duly served, the appellant failed to appear before the court for the second appeal. The court observed that the appellant had lost interest in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Issues considered

Whether a second appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution when the appellant fails to appear before the court

Subjects

civil procedure
second appeal
want of prosecution
non-appearance
dismissal

Judgment

                                                        51-SA-823-2017 (C).docx


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                 SECOND APPEAL NO. 823 OF 2017
Smt. Indira Gandhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd    ...Appellant
             VERSUS
Kohapur Municipal Corporation                       ...Respondent
                           ——————
None for the appellant.
                           ——————

                                    Coram :       RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

                                    Date      :   SEPTEMBER 3, 2026.

P. C. :

1.        The office remark shows that the appellant as well as the

respondents have been duly served. None appears for either party

when the matter is called out.

2.        The present appellant is the original plaintiff, whose suit came

to be dismissed. The appeal preferred against the dismissal of the suit

was also dismissed. Hence, the present Second Appeal has been

preferred, challenging the concurrent findings recorded by both the

Courts below.

3.        Though the present Second Appeal has been pending for

admission, no ad-interim relief has been granted in favour of the

appellant.

4.        Despite service, the appellant has neither appeared nor



Rushi                                1 of 2
                                                   51-SA-823-2017 (C).docx


remained present before the Court. It appears that the appellant has

lost interest in pursuing the present Second Appeal any further.

5.      The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed for want of

prosecution.

                                                 (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)




Rushi                             2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…