Two revision applications by applicants who repeatedly failed to appear or file documents despite multiple chances were dismissed for want of prosecution.
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.
4-REVN-74-2017.DOC
Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2024.01.03 18:11:58 +0530
Shivgan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVISION APPLICATION NO.74 OF 2017
Sandeep Bachai Pal …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
WITH
REVISION APPLICATION NO.95 OF 2017
Banshnarayan Pal …Applicant Versus Rinku Sandeep Pal & Anr. …Respondents
None present for the Applicants in both the revisions. None present for the Respondent No.1. Mr Jayesh Yagnik , APP for the Respondent -State.
CORAM: Dr. Neela Gokhale, J. DATED: 3rd January 2024
PC:-
1. None appear for the parties. Previous orders passed in the matter indicate that the Applicant has not appeared on a number of dates. By order dated 26th February 2018, last chance was given to the Applicants to appear in the matter. Once again, on 23rd March 2018, another opportunity was given to the Applicants to place additional documents on record as per their request. However, no
Page 1 of 2
3rd January 2024
4-REVN-74-2017.DOC
documents have been filed till date. The Applicants have not appeared on the previous dates as well. Hence, the revision applications are dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J)
Page 2 of 2 3rd January 2024
Sandeep Bachai Pal
The State of Maharashtra
Banshnarayan Pal
Rinku Sandeep Pal
Neela Gokhale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
