The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad dismissed the first appeal for default as the appellants failed to appear despite service of notice. No substantive order is recorded other than the dismissal.
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.
1 33 AO 44-21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
33 APEAL FROM ORDER NO. 44 OF 2021
MANDODARIBAI SHRIDHARRAO CHATE DECEASED THR LRS KUSUM ASHOKRAO AGHAV AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
SHRIRANG BAJIRAO AGHAV DECEASED MOTIRAM SHRIRANG AGHAV AND ORS
Mr. Ganesh L. Kedar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2/2, 2/5, 7, 10
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. DATED : 22/01/2024.
P. C. :
Despite service of notice to present appellants on court motion, they remained absent. As such, the appeal stands dismissed for default.
( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )
VS Maind/-
Mandodaribai Shridharao Chate Deceased Thr LRS Kusum Ashokrao Aghav and Another
Shrirang Bajirao Aghav Deceased Motiram Shrirao Aghav and Ors
Sandipkumar C. More
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
