Bombay High Court

DAGDUSAHEB LIMBAJI DHENGALE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The petitioners, Dagdusaheb Limbaji Dhengale & another, filed a contempt petition seeking time to take instructions after a 2017 contempt order directed the respondents, the State of Maharashtra, to determine rental compensation. The petitioners failed to pursue the matter after 2020, and by 2026 the rental compensation should have been decided. The court observed that the petitioners showed no interest in prosecuting the contempt. Consequently, the court dismissed the contempt petition for non‑prosecution. The judges, Sandipkumar C. More and Vaishali Patil‑Jadhav, ordered the dismissal.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate remedy when a contempt petition is not actively prosecuted for an extended period?

Subjects

contempt
rental compensation
delay
non‑prosecution

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37449-DB

                                                                                  227.20CP

                                                   1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           909 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 227 OF 2020
                                     IN WP/8397/2016

                          DAGDUSAHEB LIMBAJI DHENGALE & ANOTHER
                                          VERSUS
                            THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS

                                                  ...
                           Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr.S.S.Chillarge
                            AGP for Respondent-State : Mr.A.S.Shinde
                                                  …

                                       CORAM :         SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                       VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.

                                       DATE        :   18.08.2026


                 P.C. :


                              Though the learned counsel for the petitioners

                 seeks time to take instructions, but it appears that as per the

                 order under contempt the respondents were directed to

                 decide rental compensation. However, the order under

                 contempt appears to be passed in the year 2017 and we are

                 in the year 2026. Thus, by passage of time, the rental

                 compensation       must    have       been   determined     by      the

                 respondents. It is to be noted that the petitioners did not

                 circulate this matter after 2020, and therefore, it appears

                 that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the
                                                   227.20CP

                             2

matter. In view of the same, the Contempt Petition stands

dismissed for non-prosecution.




[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]          [SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE]
        JUDGE                         JUDGE

DDC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…