← Library
Bombay High CourtSA/631/2018dismissedrule discharged

Yadavrao S/O. Kashinath Wahane v. Sadashiv S/O. Rajaram Somkuwar

2019-10-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale2 pages

1 sa631.18.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No.631/2018 Yadavrao Wahane Vs. Sadashiv Somkuwar - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders of directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P.A. Dharaskar, Advocate for respondent CORAM :MANISH PITALE, J.

DATED : OCTOBER 04, 2019 When this appeal was called out on 27/09/2019, the following order was passed.

"This appeal has been adjourned on four occasions i.e. 07/08/2019, 21/08/2019, 28/08/2019 and 18/09/2019. The record shows that at least on two of the aforesaid four occasions, none has appeared on behalf of the appellant.

2.

In the first instance, delay in filing this appeal was not condoned by this Court. A special leave petition filed against the said order was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, delay was condoned and this appeal was restored to the file of this Court. The said order was passed on 20/09/2018.

3.

As noted above, thereafter this appeal was listed on four occasions and it has been adjourned without any effective hearing due to failure on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant to address this Court on merits in this appeal.

4.

Even today, when the appeal is called out, none has appeared on behalf of the appellant.

2 sa631.18.odt 5.

Hence, list this appeal as a matter of last chance on 04/10/2019 under the caption "for dismissal"."

2.

Even today, when the appeal is called out for hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the appellant while the learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

3.

In view of above, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

JUDGE MP Deshpande