Bombay High CourtFCA/46/2015dismissedrule discharged

Pradip Janraoji Modak v. Sau. Kiran Pradip Modak And Another

2020-01-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S.M. Modak2 pages

1 fca46.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 46 OF 2015 (PRADIP JANRAOJI MODAK..VS.. SAU. KIRAN PRADIP MODAK & ANR.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders of directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A.HAQ AND S.M.MODAK, JJ.

DATED : JANUARY 13, 2020.

By order dated 14th June 2017, the appellant was directed to file private paper book within six weeks. By order dated 17th April 2018 again eight weeks' time was granted to the appellant to file private paper book. Again by order dated 31st August 2018 twelve weeks' time was granted to file private paper book. On 3rd June 2019 none appeared for the appellant, however, the Court granted time to the appellant to file private paper book. On 1st July 2019, again none appeared for the appellant. The Court observed that filing of private paper book can be dispensed with, however, kept the matter on 8th July 2019 for passing of appropriate orders. On 8th July 2019 again none appeared for the appellant and the Court granted time to remove office objections. Today, the matter is listed with the office note that the private paper book is not filed. None appeared for the appellant in the morning session. The matter was kept back. In the afternoon session also, none for the appellant.

2 fca46.15 It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, hence, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution with costs quantified at Rupees Five Thousand, to be deposited by the appellant with the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur.

JUDGE JUDGE RRaut..