Bombay High Court
CA/2572/2026 of Hanmant Walmik Bhuse AND OTHERS Vs Vasant Ganpatrao Kumbhare died L.RS. INDUBAI AND OTHERS on 12 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. 46 SECOND APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2026 HANMANT SO WALMIK BHUSE VERSUS VASANT GANPATRAO KUMBHARE DIED THROUGH LRS INDUBAI AND ORS ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Katneshwarkar. ... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2572
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
46 sa.172.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. 46 SECOND APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2026 HANMANT SO WALMIK BHUSE VERSUS VASANT GANPATRAO KUMBHARE DIED THROUGH LRS INDUBAI AND ORS ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Katneshwarkar. ... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2572 OF 2026 IN SA/172/2026 ...
CORAM :
SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 12th October, 2026. P.C.: SECOND APPEAL :
Heard learned Advocate for the appellant.
Admit.
The following substantial question of law is formed:- Whether the impugned judgment is legal and correct when the cross-objection preferred by the appellant was not considered at all ?”
Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 30th November, 2026.
46 sa.172.26.odt
Call for record and proceedings. APPLICATION FOR STAY:
This is an application seeking stay to the execution of the impugned judgment and decree.
Heard learned Advocates for the applicant. Perused the application.
It can be seen from the judgment of the Appellate Court that the cross-objection filed by this appellant / applicant is not considered. Therefore, the impugned judgment is apparently erroneous. In such circumstances, if the decree passed by the learned Trial Court is executed, the very purpose of filing of this second appeal will be frustrated, which is admitted. The application therefore, deserves to be allowed as prayed. Hence, Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] nga