RAMBHAU PATILBUA DARADE THR LRS TULSABAI RAMBHAU DARADE and ORS v. STATE OF MAH THR COLLECTOR BEED
FA/1104/2005 · 2026-06-17
Shri Sanjay A Deshmukh
body2005
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2005 DAILYLAW 1809 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2005 DAILYLAW 1809 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
fa1105.05- -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 931 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1105 OF 2005 Maruti Lahanu Darade and others VERSUS State of Maharashtra Through the Collector Beed ….. AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 1104 OF 2005 Rambhau Patilbua Darade Thr Lrs Tulsabai Rambhau Darade and others VERSUS State of Maharashtra Through the Collector Beed ….. AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 1106 OF 2005 Maruti Lahanu Darade and others VERSUS State of Maharashtra Through the Collector Beed ….. AGP for Respondents: Mr. B.V. Virdhe …..
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 17th JUNE, 2026 PER COURT :-
1. In First Appeal No. 1105 of 2005, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are reported to have died. Therefore, the appeal stands abated to that extent. None appears for the remaining appellants, i.e. appellant Nos. 1 and 4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in default.
2. In First Appeal No. 1104 of 2005, as per the bailiff's report, 2026:BHC-AUG:24052
fa1105.05- -2- appellant Nos. 1-A and 1-B are reported to have died. No one appears for the appellants in the said appeal. Considering that the appeal is pending since 2005, it deserves to be disposed of as abated. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as abated.
3. Insofar as First Appeal No. 1106 of 2005 is concerned, as per the bailiff's report, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are reported to have died. The appeal stands abated against appellant Nos. 2 and 3. Insofar as appellant Nos. 1 and 4 are concerned, they have been duly served. Learned Advocate Mr. M. S. Karad was appointed to represent them. However, he is also absent. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed for default insofar as appellant Nos. 1 and 4 are concerned. Accordingly, the appeal stands abated against appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and is dismissed for default insofar as appellant Nos. 1 and 4 are concerned.
(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/