Bombay High Court
MR.MOHAMMED IRFAN MOHAMMED USMANversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY THROUGH ASSTT. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the applicant’s repeated non‑appearance demonstrated a lack of desire to prosecute, and therefore dismissed the applications for want of prosecution.
Summary
The applicant, Basavraj, filed two civil applications before the High Court of Bombay. On a prior date, the applicant appeared in person and requested a adjournment because his counsel was unwell, leading the court to reset the hearing for 1 September 2026. On the rescheduled date, the applicant again failed to appear. The court inferred that the applicant was not interested in pursuing the applications. Consequently, the court dismissed both civil applications for want of prosecution, noting the applicant's lack of desire to continue the proceedings.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate consequence when a party repeatedly fails to appear for a scheduled hearing?
- Does repeated non‑appearance indicate a lack of desire to prosecute the suit, justifying dismissal for want of prosecution?
Subjects
- Civil Procedure Code
- want of prosecution
- non‑appearance
- High Court of Bombay
- dismissal of suit
Judgment
6-CAF-4260-2018 (C).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4260 OF 2018
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 34711 OF 2017
Digitally
signed by
BASAVRAJ Mr. Mohammed Irfan Mohammed Usman ...Applicant
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA
GURAPPA PATIL
PATIL Date:
Versus
2026.09.02
12:46:29 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. ...Respondents
+0530
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4261 OF 2018
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 34711 OF 2017
__
Mr. Pradeep M. Patil for the Respondent BMC
__
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE : 1st SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. On previous occasion, the Court passed the following
order:-
“1. On previous occasion, none had appeared and the matter was
placed on Board for dismissal.
2. The Appellant is appearing in person and informs the Court that
his Advocate is not well. He therefore, requests for time.
3. Renotify on 1 September, 2026.”
Basavraj Page|1
6-CAF-4260-2018 (C).DOC
2. Today, once again, none appeared for the Applicant.
Hence, it is clear, to my mind that the Applicant is not desirous
of prosecuting the Civil Applications. The Civil Applications are,
therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution.
[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]
Basavraj Page|2
Checking your session…