Case Note & Summary
This is an interim order in First Appeal No.155 of 2016 filed by Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation against Soma Chinku Tayade (deceased) through LRs and others. The appeal was already dismissed in default against respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 11 as per office order dated 12.04.2016. On the date of hearing, counsel for appellant sought time to take necessary steps for restoring the appeal against those respondents. The court, noting the request, adjourned the matter for two weeks to 20.06.2017. No final adjudication on merits was made.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Dismissal in Default - Restoration - First Appeal No.155 of 2016 - Appeal was dismissed in default against respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 11 as per office order dated 12.04.2016 - Appellant's counsel sought time to take steps for restoration - Court adjourned matter for two weeks to enable appellant to move for restoration (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal should be restored against respondents dismissed in default?
Final Decision
Matter adjourned to 20.06.2017 on appellant's request for time to take steps for restoration.
Law Points
- Dismissal in default
- Restoration of appeal
- Adjournment for steps
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (06) 195
First Appeal No.155 of 2016
Smt. Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.
Shri Vinay Dahat (Appellant), Shri Amol Darekar (Respondent Nos.3,5 to 10 & 11), Ms. Kalyani Deshpande (AGP for Respondent No.12)
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, thr. its Executive Engineer
Soma Chinku Tayade (dead) thr. LR's Shivram Somaji Tayade and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
First appeal against land acquisition award
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought time to take steps for restoration of appeal against respondent Nos.1,2,4 and 11
Filing Reason
Appeal was dismissed in default against some respondents
Previous Decisions
Appeal dismissed in default against respondent Nos.1,2,4 and 11 as per office order dated 12.04.2016
Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored against respondents dismissed in default?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant's counsel sought time to take necessary steps for restoring the appeal against respondent Nos.1,2,4 and 11.
Ratio Decidendi
Not applicable as this is an interim procedural order.
Judgment Excerpts
As per the office order dated 12.04.2016, the appeal is already dismissed in default against the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 11.
Learned counsel for appellant seeks time for taking necessary steps for restoring the appeal against respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 11.
Procedural History
Appeal filed; dismissed in default against respondent Nos.1,2,4 and 11 on 12.04.2016; on 06.06.2017, appellant sought time to restore; matter adjourned to 20.06.2017.
