Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20812 (BOM)

MAHADEO BALKU BHOSALE v. RANJANA BALASO JAGTAP and ORS.

FA/1424/2002 · 2026-10-16

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1/2 18-FA-1424-2002 (C).DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1424 OF 2002 Mahadeo Balku Bhosale …...Appellant VERSUS Ranjana Balaso Jagtap And Ors. …...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3376 OF 2002 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1424 OF 2002 Mahadeo Balku Bhosale …........Applicant VERSUS. Smt. Ranjana Balaso Jagtap And Ors. ….......Respondents ----- Dr. Uday Warunjikar (Through VC) a/w Adv. N. G. Kamble, for Appellant. Ms. Varsha Chavan (Through VC), for Respondent No.7 – Insurance Company. ----- CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 16th OCTOBER, 2026. P.C. 1. Heard Dr. Uday Warunjikar, learned Advocate for the Appellant, and Ms. Varsha Chavan, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 7–Insurance Company 2. By the present Appeal, the Appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 3rd July 2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli, in M.A.C.P. No. 29 of 1992. Shantanu S. Dhudum SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date: 2026.10.17 15:47:16 +0530 2/2 18-FA-1424-2002 (C).DOC 3. Dr. Uday Warunjikar, learned Advocate for the Appellant, tenders a photocopy of the order dated 28th September 2021 passed by the District Judge-2 and Member, M.A.C.T., Sangli, in M.A.C.P. Darkhast No. 003 of 2002, whereby the said Darkhast is dismissed for default, same is taken on record and marked with “X” for identification. 4. Dr. Uday Warunjikar, learned Advocate for the Appellant, submits that, in view of the order dated 28th September 2021 passed in M.A.C.P. Darkhast No. 003 of 2002 (“X”), nothing remains for consideration in this Appeal. He, therefore, submits that this First Appeal has become infructuous and may be disposed of accordingly. Ms. Varsha Chavan, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 7–Insurance Company, does not oppose the request made by Dr. Uday Warunjikar, learned Advocate for the Appellant. 5. In view of the statement made by Dr. Uday Warunjikar, learned Advocate for the Appellant, First Appeal No. 1424 of 2002 stands dismissed as infructuous. 6. All pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) Shantanu S. Dhudum