Ambadas Kisan Bhuyar and Others vs Dnyandeo Ganpat Ingle and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ambadas Kisan Bhuyar and Others vs Dnyandeo Ganpat Ingle and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree dated 06.05.2024 in Regular Civil Appeal No.174 of 2023 quashed and set aside; First Appeal remanded to the learned First Appellate Court for decision afresh, with a request to decide it expeditiously and if possible before 31.03.2027; parties directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 04.04.2026; separate notice for appearance not to be issued; parties to bear their own costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment of the learned First Appellate Court is sustainable when it was passed without service of notice of the First Appeal upon some of the respondents therein, i.e. respondent Nos.2, 3-d, 3-e, 7-ii-a, 7-ii-b and 7-ii-c (appellant Nos.2, 3d, 3e, 7ii-a, 7ii-b in this appeal).

Court's answer

The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellants: on the concession of learned advocates for the respondents, the First Appeal was in fact decided without notice to the respondents enumerated in the substantial question of law, rendering the impugned First Appellate Court judgment unsustainable.

Ratio / Principle

The First Appeal must be remanded for decision afresh before the learned First Appellate Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Rohit W. Joshi, J.), Second Appeal No.13 of 2025, decided 04.03.2026 — Allowed. The judgment and decree dated 06.05.2024 passed by the learned District Judge-3, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No.174 of 2023 was quashed and set aside and the First Appeal remanded for decision afresh. The appeal was admitted on a substantial question of law: whether the First Appellate Court judgment was sustainable when passed without service of notice of the First Appeal upon respondent Nos.2, 3-d, 3-e, 7-ii-a, 7-ii-b and 7-ii-c therein (appellant Nos.2, 3d, 3e, 7ii-a, 7ii-b in the present appeal). On the concession of learned advocates for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and respondent Nos.5A to 5E that those respondents were not served in the Regular Civil Appeal, the substantial question of law was answered in favour of the appellants. The First Appellate Court was requested to decide the appeal at the earliest — the appeal having been filed in 2023 and the dispute pertaining to right of way of agriculturists — and if possible before 31.03.2027; parties to appear before it on 04.04.2026, with no separate notice of appearance to be issued; parties to bear their own costs.

2026:BHC-NAG:3649

SA 13.25.odt

1

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

SECOND APPEAL NO.13 OF 2025

APPELLANTS : 1. Ambadas Kisan Bhuyar, Aged about 44 years, Occ-Agriculture,

Vitthal Kisan Bhuyar, Aged about 39 years, Occ-Agriculture,

Dnyandeo Baban Ingle, Through his legal heirs,

3a) Kamla Dnyandeo Ingle, Aged about 61 years, OccHousehold,

3b) Santosh Dynandeo Ingle, Aged about 43 years, OccAgriculturist,

3c) Ganesh Dynandeo Ingle, Aged about 38 years, OccAgriculturist, All R/o-Changephal, Tq. & Dist. Akola

3d) Sau. Sharda Ganesh Kale, Aged about 41 years, OccHousehold, R/o- Tar File, Akola, Dist. Akola.

3e) Sau. Suryakanta Keshavrao Hinge, Aged about 37 years, OccHousehold, R/o-Tintrala, Tq. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana

Baliram Baban Ingle, Aged about 53 years, Occ-Agriculture,

SA 13.25.odt

2

Gajanan Baban Ingle, Aged about 43 years, Occ-Agriculture,

Suryabhan Baban Ingle, Aged about 43 years, Occ-Agriculture, All R/o-Changephal, Tq. And Dist. Akola.

Smt. Chandabai Baban Ingle, Through her legal heirs,

7i) Smt. DevkabaiRameshwarPagrut, Aged about adult, OccHousehold, R/o-Ghusar, Tq. And Dist. Akola.

7 ii) Onkar Baban Ingle, Through his legal heirs,

7ii-a) Pramila Sanjay More, Aged adult, Occ-Household, R/o-Khandala, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldhana

7ii-b) Gangabai Satyabhan Khande, Age-adult, Occ-Household, R/o Rajanda, Tq. Barshitakli, Dist. Akola.

7ii-c) Smt. Rukhminibai Onkar Ingle, Age-Adult, Occ-Household,

7ii-d) BaldevOnkar Ingle, Age- 51 years, Occ-Agriculture

Bhimrao Onkar Ingle Aged about 56 years, Occ-Agriculture,

Vishwambhar Onkar Ingle, Aged about 43 years, Occ-Agriculture, All R/o- Changephal, Tq. And Dist. Akola

… Original Defendants

SA 13.25.odt

3

.. VERSUS ..

RESPONDENTS : 1. Dnyandeo Ganpat Ingle, Through its Legal Heirs,

1a) Smt. Vimalbai Dnyandeo Ingle, Aged about 72 years, OccHousehold, R/o-Changephal, Tq. And Dist. Akola.

1b) Sunil Dnyandeo Ingle, (Deceased)

1c) Sau. Sandhya Rajendra Kale, Aged about 57 years, OccHousehold, R/o Gadge Nagar, Bhatkuli Road, Amravati, Dist. Amravati

1d) Sau. Vandana Prakash Kharode, Aged about 55 years, OccHousehold, R/o-Badnera, Dist. Amravati.

1e) Sau. Seema Santosh Gorle, Aged about 52 years, OccHousehold, R/o-Wadegaon Fatehpur, Tq. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati.

Sunil Dyandeo Ingle, Through his Legal heirs,

2a) Smt. Ranjana Sunil Ingle, Aged about 51 years, Occ-Household

2b) Mayur Sunil Ingle, Aged about 31 years, Occ-Agriculture,

2c) Shubham Sunil Ingle, Aged about 30 years, Occ-Agriculture,

2d) Akshay Sunil Ingle, Aged about

SA 13.25.odt

4

28 years, Occ-Agriculture, All R/o-Changephal, Tq. And Dist. Akola.

DigambarGanpat Ingle, Aged about 77 years, Occ-Agriculture,

Vishnu Ganpat Ingle, Aged about 71 years, Occ-Agriculture, Both R/o-Changephal, Tq. And Dist. Akola.

...Original Plaintiffs

Smt.Bebabai Haribhau Hingne (dead), Through legal heirs, 5-a) Haribhau Kashiram Hingne, Aged about-65 years, occuAgriculturist,

5-b) Nilesh Haribhau Hingne, Aged about 35 years, occu-Agriculturist, 5-c) Rajesh Haribhau Hingne, Aged about 30 years, occu-Agriculturist,

5-d) Gopal Haribhau Hingne, Aged about 27 years, Occu-Agriculturist,

5-e) Rameshwar Haribhau Hingne, Aged about 25 years, occuAgriculturist,

All R/o Tintrav, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldhana.

Mr. A. R. Deshpande, Advocate for appellants.

Mr. A. S. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent Nos.5A to 5E.

Mr. M. G. Sarda, Advocate for respondent No.1(a), 1©, 1(D), 1(E) and 2(a to d), 3 and 4.

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 04.03.2026

SA 13.25.odt

5

J U D G M E N T :

Learned advocate for the appellants contends that the First Appeal was decided on merits without service of notice to respondent Nos.2, 3-d, 3-e, 7-ii-a, 7-ii-b, 7-ii-c, who are appellant Nos.2, 3d, 3e, 7ii-a, 7 ii-b in the present appeal.

Vide order dated 22.01.2026, record and proceedings were called. On perusal of the record and proceedings, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned advocate for respondent No.5A to 5E do not dispute that the aforesaid respondents were not served in the Regular Civil Appeal.

In view of the above, the appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

I. Whether the impugned judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court is sustainable specially when the same is passed without service of notice of First Appeal upon some of the respondents in First Appeal i.e. respondent Nos.2, 3-d, 3-e, 7-ii-a, 7-ii-b, 7-ii-c

SA 13.25.odt

6

who are appellant Nos.2, 3d, 3e, 7ii-a, 7 ii-b in

the present appeal ?

At the joint request of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing forthwith.

In view of the concession by learned advocates for respondents that the appeal was in fact decided without notice to the respondents in the first appeal whose numbers enumerated in the aforesaid substantial question of law is answered in favour of appellants. The First Appeal will have to be remanded for decision afresh. Learned First Appellate Court is requested to make endeavor to decide the appeal at the earliest, having regard to the fact that the appeal was filed in the year 2023 and the dispute pertain to right of way of agriculturists. Second Appeal is allowed in the following

terms:-

I. Judgment and decree dated 06.05.2024, passed by the learned District Judge-3, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No.174 of 2023 is quashed and set aside.

II. The learned First Appellate Court is requested to decide the appeal expeditiously and if possible

SA 13.25.odt

7

before 31.03.2027.

III. Parties shall appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 04.04.2026.

IV. Parties to note that separate notice for appearance will not be issued.

V. Parties to bear their own costs.

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

Tanmay...