Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SWARGIYA DAULATRAO SALVE GURUJI MAGASVARGIYA SAHAKARI GRIHA NIRMAN SANSTHA THR CHIEF PROMOTERversusSWADHIN SHIVRAJ KSHATRIYA AND OTHERS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner, Swargiya Daulatrao Salve Guruji Magasvargiya Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha, filed a contempt petition in 2013 but failed to appear in court and did not serve the respondents, Swadhin S/o. Shivraj Kshatriya and others. The petitioner's counsel, Golegaonkar Anil S., was also absent. The court observed that the petitioner had taken no steps to prosecute the matter since 2013. Consequently, the bench held that the petition lacked the requisite interest to proceed. The contempt petition was therefore dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Issues considered

  • Whether a contempt petition may be dismissed for lack of prosecution by the petitioner

Subjects

  • contempt
  • non‑prosecution
  • dismissal
  • civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39023

                                                                907 CONT. PETITION NO. 309 OF 2013




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                907 CONT. PETITION NO. 309 OF 2013
                                          IN WP/117/2012

                      Swargiya Daulatrao Salve Guruji Magasvargiya Sahakari
                         Griha Nirman Sanstha Through Chief Promoter
                                             Versus
                           Swadhin S/o. Shivraj Kshatriya And Others

                     __________________________________________________________
                     Adv. Golegaonkar Anil S. for the Petitioner - Absent
                     Ms. M. N. Ghanekar, AGP for State
                     __________________________________________________________


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

                                        DATE          : AUGUST 28, 2026

                     PER COURT :

                     1)              None appears for the petitioner.

                     2)              It appears that since 2013, the petitioner has

                     not taken any steps to serve Respondent Nos. 1 and 4.

                     Today also, none appeared for the petitioner.

                     3)              Thus, it appears that the petitioner is not

                     interested in prosecuting the matter. In view of the same,

                     the    Contempt       Petition    stands   dismissed         for     non-

                     prosecution.



                     (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)               (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
                               JUDGE                               JUDGE
                      Komal Kamble                                                  Page 1 of 1


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.