Bombay High Court

VISHWANATH VITTHALRAO PAWAR (CHAKKAWAR)versusVIKRAM KERBA CHAKKARWAR AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to diligently pursue the matter.

Summary

Vishwanath Vithalrao Pawar filed Contempt Petition No. 226 of 2012 (WP/652/2010) against Vikram Kerba Chakkarwar and others. A notice was issued on 26 April 2012, but the petitioner failed to pursue the matter thereafter. The Court observed that the petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the petition and that, given the lapse of time, the grievance appeared to have been resolved. No substantive hearing on the merits was conducted. Consequently, the Court disposed of the contempt petition without any order against the respondents.

Issues considered

The Court considered whether the contempt petition should proceed despite the petitioner's inactivity and lack of diligence.

Subjects

contempt of court
petition dismissal
procedural default
lack of diligence
civil procedure

Judgment

                                 (1)
                                                    2 CP-226.2012.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
            2 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 226 OF 2012
                     IN WP/652/2010

      VISHWANATH VITTHALRAO PAWAR (CHAKKAWAR)
                      VERSUS
        VIKRAM KERBA CHAKKARWAR AND OTHERS
                                 …
     Mr. Pradip Jadhav, Advocate holding for Mr. V.P. Latange,
                    Advocate for the petitioner.
           Mr. S.J. Salgare, A.G.P. for respondent-State.
                           ...
                 CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                         VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                 DATED : 7 SEPTEMBER 2026.

ORDER (Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J) :

1.    None for the petitioner.

2.    After issuance of notice in this petition on 26.04.2012,

the petitioner has not circulated the matter thereafter.         The

petitioner is not diligent in pursuing the matter. It seems that

with the passage of time, grievance of the petitioner must have

been resolved.

3.    Hence, the contempt petition is disposed of.



(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)                (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
       JUDGE                                   JUDGE




VD_Dhirde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…