Second appeal from 1996; sole appellant had died two years earlier and her legal representatives declined to respond or prosecute the appeal, so the court dismissed the appeal 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.
bipin prithiani
1
28-sa-438.96.doc
BIPIN DHARMENDERPRITHIANI Digitally signed by BIPINDHARMENDER PRITHIANIDate: 2024.01.22 18:42:25 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 438 OF 1996
… Draupadibai G. Palekar Appellant Versus
Sitaram B. Palekar … Respondent
Mr. Sunil Raorane i/by P. A. Sawant for the Appellant. None for Respondent.
CORAM: R. N. LADDHA, J.
DATE : 22 JANUARY 2024
P.C. :
. On 16 January 2024, the learned counsel for the appellant informed the Court that the sole appellant has expired two years ago and legal representative of the appellant are not responding though contacted. In view of this, the appeal was posted for today under the caption ‘for dismissal’.
R. N. LADDHA, J.
Draupadibai G. Palekar
Sitaram B. Palekar
R. N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
