← Library
Bombay High CourtCAO/213/2023dismissed

Ramesh S/O Rajaram Dahikar v. Motiram S/O Tukaram Meshram (Deceased) Through Chandrashekhar S/O Motiram Meshram And Others

2025-11-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi2 pages

27. CAO 213.23.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.213 OF 2023 IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.2852 OF 2023 IN SECOND APPEAL ST NO. 13821 OF 2014 (R.C. NO. 670 OF Ramesh s/o Rajaram Dahikar Vs. Motiram s/o Tukaram Meshram (deceased) thru. LR's Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order None appears.

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 07.11.2025.

.

Registration of Second Appeal Stamp No.13821 of 2014 was refused on account of failure on the part of the appellant to remove office objections. The appellant has filed an application challenging the order passed by the learned Registrar (Judicial) refusing registration of the Second Appeal. There is a delay of around 2339 days in filing the said application, for which the present application is filed seeking condonation of delay. 2.

The application is rejected against respondent Nos.4,5 and 6 vide order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned Registrar (Judicial). Notice in the said application was issued vide order dated 16.02.2023. The application was not listed thereafter for a considerable period. It was listed on 08.09.2025. Nobody was present on behalf of the applicant on 08.09.2025 even on the

27. CAO 213.23.odt second call. The application was ordered to be placed for passing dismissal order. On 23.09.2025, as well as on 24.09.2025, there was no appearance on behalf of the applicant. Today also, the application was called out on two occasions, however, there is no appearance on behalf of the applicant.

3.

Learned Advocate Mr. C.D. Rohankar has filed a pursis dated 25.09.2025 seeking withdrawal of his Vakalatnama, stating that the applicant had taken 'no objection' from him for engaging another Advocate. It, therefore, appears that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the application. The application is, therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution.

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) Tanmay...