← Library
Bombay High CourtFA/934/2010dismissed

Smt. Kusum Wd/O Shivdas Khobragade And Others v. Satish S/O Mohanlal Maniyar And ANR.

2025-12-15Hon'Ble Shri Justice Pravin S. Patil2 pages

1 fa934.2010.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.934/2010 [ 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - None for the parties.

CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.

DATED : 15.12.2025 .

1.

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

"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.

2. 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.

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

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

5. 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".

2 fa934.2010.odt 2.

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. 3.

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

(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) Mukund Ambulkar