Bombay High Court

MARKAZI SUNNI JAMA MASJID MOHALLA BELDAR JAMAT DHARANGAON THROUGH PRESIDENT RIYAZODDIN SHAIKH LADJIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the petitioner’s negligent conduct.

Summary

The Markazi Sunni Jama Masjid filed a contempt petition (Cont. Petition No. 529 of 2019) in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. After filing, the petitioner failed to serve respondent No. 2 and did not give any instructions to its own counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to take instructions, but the court observed that no steps had been taken since 2019. The bench held that the petitioner’s conduct amounted to gross negligence and amounted to non‑prosecution of the petition. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for non‑prosecution.

Issues considered

Whether a contempt petition may be dismissed on account of the petitioner’s failure to serve a respondent and to cooperate with counsel.

Subjects

contempt petition
non‑prosecution
service of notice
procedural default
court dismissal

Judgment

                                    (1)
                                                    913- C.P. 529-2019.odt
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CONT. PETITION NO. 529 OF 2019
                         IN WP/3650/2018

    MARKAZI SUNNI JAMA MASJID MOHALLA BELDAR JAMAT
DHARANGAON THROUGH PRESIDENT RIYAZODDIN SHAIKH LADJI
                                VERSUS
          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                   …..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Adv.Samta S. Pathare h/f
                              Mr. M. S. Deshmukh
AGP for Respondents: Mrs. M. N. Ghanekar
                                  …..

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

                   DATED :      SEPTEMBER 29, 2026

ORDER:-

       Though the learned counsel holding for Mr. M.S. Deshmukh

seeks time to take instructions, but the record shows that the

petitioner after 2019, did not take any step to serve respondent No.2.

He did not even give any instructions to his own Advocate. Therefore,

considering the highly negligent conduct of the petitioner, the petition

is dismissed for non prosecution.



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

YSK/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…