Bombay High Court
Dinesh Waman Appa Gadve vs Nagar Parishad, Morshi Through ... on 23 September, 2021
Bench: S. M. Modak
cao.255.21 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Civil Application [CAO] No.255 of 2021
in
Civil Application [MCA] St.No.5594 of 2020
in
Second Appeal No.322 of 2004 (D)
Dinesh Waman Appa Gadve
vs.
Nagar Parishad, Morshi, through its Chief Officer, District Amravati
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri C.B. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant.
CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2021.
Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant-
defendant. Though notice is served on the respondent-
plaintiff and there is an appearance, today no one is
present. This Court dismissed the appeal filed by the
present appellant on 06/12/2018. It was due to non-
appearance of the appellant and not prosecuting the
appeal. When the appeal was dismissed, learned
Advocate Shri A.J. Gilda was present and he has
expressed difficulty to argue the matter, because he
was not having instructions. The order further refers
that he has made a statement that he has already sent
a notice to the appellant in November, 2017.
In view of that, this Court has discharged
learned Advocate Shri J.T. Gilda. This Court has formed
an opinion that the appellant is not interested in
prosecuting the appeal. If there is an application for
restoration, this Court has directed the appellant to
deposit the costs of Rs.5,000/-. The appellant has
::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 06:21:15 :::
cao.255.21 2/3
already deposited costs of Rs.5,000/-. The copy of the
receipt is filed.
In the present application, the appellant had
given reasons of medical illness, for which he could not
contact the Advocate. This ground is not disputed.
Further more, there is a contention that the substantial
question of law framed in the appeal is also substantial
question of law in the appeal mentioned in paragraph 3
of the application. The suit for possession is filed by
Morshi Nagar Parishad. It was decreed. Whereas, the
first appeal filed by the present appellant came to be
dismissed.
In view of the above position, as now the
appellant is ready with the appeal. This Court feels it
necessary to restore the appeal. Hence, the order :
ORDER
i. Order dated 06/12/2018 passed by this Court is
recalled.
ii. Second Appeal No.322 of 2004 is restored.
iii. The civil applications are allowed and disposed
of accordingly.
Second Appeal No.322/2004 :
The appeal is already admitted. The learned
Advocate for the appellant to serve the learned
Advocate for the respondent about restoration of the
appeal. The matter be kept after four weeks.
cao.255.21 3/3
Civil Application No.1127/2005 :
Already there is an order to stay the
execution of the judgment during pendency of the
second appeal. By that order, the appellant was
directed to deposit the rent to the respondent during
pendency of the second appeal.
In view of restoration of the appeal, the
judgment passed by the Court below is stayed till next
date. The appellant to continue in paying the rent to
the respondent till that time.
JUDGE
*sandesh
