The court dismissed the application because the authorized Advocate for the applicant did not appear on the second date of hearing despite a previous warning.
The miscellaneous civil application was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
27-MCA-101-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.101 OF 2022
SOU. KAVITA SANTOSH KARANDE )...APPLICANT
V/s.
SANTOSH BHIMRAO KARANDE)...RESPONDENT
None for the Applicant.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM:ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE:1st DECEMBER, 2023.
P.C.:
1. None for the Applicant.
2. On 27th October, 2023 the following order was passed:-
“1.This matter has been listed for dismissal. This
matter was kept back in the morning session as someone
appeared on behalf of the Advocate for the Applicant and
sought to keep back the matter. When the matter is
called out in the afternoon session, Mr. Chaudhari,
learned Counsel appears and submits that he is the
arguing Counsel in the matter. However, the Advocate
on record is neither present in Court nor he has
instructed the Counsel.
2. Accordingly, list on 1st December, 2023.
3.It is made clear that, if none appears with due
instructions in the matter on behalf of the Applicant on
the next date, this application will be dismissed.”
3. As none appears for the Applicant, application stands dismissed.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
Priya Soparkar 1/1
Digitally signed by PRIYA PRIYA RAJESH RAJESH SOPARKAR SOPARKAR Date: 2023.12.01 18:10:12 +0530
SOU. KAVITA SANTOSH KARANDE
SANTOSH BHIMRAO KARANDE
ABHAY AHUJA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court