Second appeal of 2011 dismissed for non-prosecution after the appellant repeatedly failed to appear and did not bring the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.2 on record despite earlier orders.
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.
6 SA-70-2011.DOC
2024:BHC-GOA:954
Meena
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
SECOND APPEAL NO.70 OF 2011
SHEELA CAMILO
.....APPELLANTS
Versus
SUNITA SIRRISKAR AND ANR.
…...RESPONDENTS
Ms Y. Mandrekar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
CORAM: BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J
DATED : 20th June, 2024
P.C.:
1. Vide order dated 19/04/2024, this Court observed thus :
“ This Second Appeal was dismissed for nonprosecution as the learned Counsel for the appellant was absent.
2. By order dated 26.08.2021 in Misc. Civil Application No.1266/2021(F), the same was restored based on the assurance of Ms Narvekar that henceforth she would diligently attend to this matter.
3. Today when the matter is called out, neither the appellant nor the Advocates appear. Ms Yadika Mandrekar appears for the respondent no.1.
4. As a last chance, place the matter on 25.04.2024 for directions under the caption "For Dismissal". If, on this date as well, neither the appellant nor her Advocate
Page 1 of 3
6 SA-70-2011.DOC
appears, this Court will be left with no option than to dismiss this Second Appeal for non-prosecution. This is a Second Appeal of the year 2011 and the same cannot be adjourned indefinitely.”
2. The matter was placed on 25/04/2024 wherein the following order was passed:
“Ms S. Parulekar appears on behalf of the appellant. She says that Vakalatnama would be filed within a week from today. She assures the Court that she would appear for the appellant irrespective of her name not appearing on the cause list.
2. Ms Parulekar requests for an adjournment. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned to 20.06.2024 by clarifying that this is an old matter and, therefore, a request for adjournment will not be entertained unless they are for unavoidable reasons.”
3. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that intimation
was given to this Court that Respondent No.2 expired and no steps have been taken till date. Such order is reflected on 10/10/2012 which reads thus:
“Mr. U. R. Timble, learned Advocate appears for respondent no.1. Appellant to take steps to serve respondent no.2 within a period of three weeks. Stand over to 21.11.2012.”
bringing the legal heirs of respondent No.2 on record.
Page 2 of 3
6 SA-70-2011.DOC
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.
Page 3 of 3
Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Designation: Private Secretary Date: 20/06/2024 17:14:07
Sheela Camilo
Sunita Sirriskar
Respondent No.2 (deceased)
Bharat P. Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
