Dismissed¶16

Smt. Kusum Wd/O Shivdas Khobragade and Others v. Satish S/O Mohanlal Maniyar and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2025FA/934/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First Appeal No.934/2010, Nagpur Bench, Bombay High Court; single judge Pravin S. Patil; decided 15.12.2025; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution; appellants absent on 17.11.2025, 24.11.2025 and 15.12.2025; final opportunity with warning granted on 10.12.2025; matter earlier listed under caption 'dismissal'; no substantive issues argued; no counsel appeared ('None for the parties').

What did the court decide?

The appellants' repeated failure to appear, even after a final opportunity with an express warning, shows they are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. ¶15

Smt. Kusum Wd/O Shivdas Khobragade and Others Vs Satish S/O Mohanlal Maniyar and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 fa934.2010.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.934/2010

¶4

[ Smt. Kusum wd/o ShivdasKhobragade and ors VS. Satish s/o Mohanlal Maniyar and anr. ] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶5

¶6

None for the parties.

¶7

CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 15.12.2025.

¶8

This Court on 10.12.2025 passed the following order in the matter:

¶9

“1. In the present matter, the record shows that this appeal was admitted on 30.8.2010. Thereafter, same was listed in the year 2013 directing the appellants to file the paper book. Accordingly the paper book is filed. Subsequent thereafter i.e. on 17.11.2025 and 24.11.2025 no one appeared in the matter.

¶10

This court, therefore, by recording the absence of the appellant, directed the registry to list this matter under the caption of 'dismissal'. However, though the matter is listed under the caption of 'dismissal', no one appeared in the matter today. As such, it is clear that the appellant seems to be not interested to prosecute the present appeal.

¶11

However, considering the nature of appeal, one more opportunity is granted to the appellants.

¶12

List the matter again under the caption of 'dismissal' on 15.12.2025.

¶13

It is made clear that on 15.12.2025, if no one appear on behalf of the appellants, this court will constrain to pass the order of dismissal”.

¶14

2 fa934.2010.odt

¶15

Today, it is expected from the appellants to appear in the matter. However, today, again none appeared in the matter. This conduct clearly indicates that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the present appeal.

¶16

Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶17

(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.)

¶18

Mukund Ambulkar

Smt. Kusum Wd/O Shivdas Khobragade and Others v. Satish S/O Mohanlal Maniyar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kusum Wd/O Shivdas Khobragade and Others v. Satish S/O Mohanlal Maniyar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.I.D.C. Thr. Executive Engineer Vs Keshavdeo S/O Khemdeo Bhaiswar and Anr.

Sau. Kiran Rajesh Thakre vs Rajesh Sheshrao Thakre

National Highway Authority of India Thr Project Director vs Umesh Pandurang Patre and Others

Madhuri W/O Virendra Chinchkhede vs Virendra S/O Baliram Chinchkhede

The Nagpur Zilla Jangal Kamgar Sahakari Federation Ltd. Nagpur Thr. Secretary Ramesh S. Giradkar vs the Industrial Court, through Its Member, Maharashtra Nagpur Bench, Nagpur and Another

Pallavi Hemant Gulhane vs Hemant Manoharrao Gulhane