Bombay High Court
GUL G. PURSNANIversusBABU CHOITHRAM BACHWANI AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ARIF S DOCTOR
Holding
The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
The plaintiff Gul G. Pursnani filed a testamentary suit (No. 43 of 1996) against Babu Choithram Bachwani and others. The court had previously adjourned the matter due to non‑appearance of parties. Counsel for the plaintiff appeared in a related suit (No. 78 of 2014) and highlighted an earlier order granting time for service of heirs. On the present date, no representative of the plaintiff in suit 43 appeared, indicating a lack of desire to prosecute. Consequently, the court dismissed suit 43 for want of prosecution. The counsel for the related suit informed the court that the plaintiff in suit 78 had died and sought further time, leading the court to stand over the matter to 11 August 2026 for direction.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate consequence when a plaintiff fails to appear and shows no intention to prosecute a testamentary suit?
- Whether the court should grant further adjournment in light of the plaintiff's death in the related suit.
Subjects
- want of prosecution
- adjournment
- service of notice
- testamentary suit
- civil procedure
- dismissal
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
MEERA 1/2 11-TS-43-96.DOC
MEERA MAHESH
MAHESH JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
2026.07.08
10:35:13
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 43 OF 1996
Gul G. Pursnani ...Plaintiff
Versus
Babu Choithram Bachwani And Ors. ...Defendants
WITH
TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.78 OF 2014
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.445 OF 1996
-----
Mr. D. R. Mishra for Plaintiff.
-----
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE : 7th July 2026
P.C.
1. On the previous occasion the Court had stood over the matters for
dismissal because none appeared for the parties.
2. Today, Learned Counsel Mr. Mishra has entered appearance on behalf of
the Plaintiff in Testamentary Suit No.78 of 2014. He has invited my attention to
the order passed by this Court dated 10 th April 2026, which reads thus:
“Mr. Tejas Vora, learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the Defendants,
states that despite best efforts the heirs and legal representatives of Plaintiff
in Testamentary Suit no. 43 of 1996 have not yet been served. He therefore
seeks some time. Considering this, stand over to 7th May 2026.”
3. Today, however, none is present for the Plaintiff in Testamentary Suit
No.43 of 1996. It is therefore, clear to my mind that the Plaintiff in Testamentary
Meera Jadhav
2/2 11-TS-43-96.DOC
Suit No.43 of 1996 is not desirous of prosecuting the Suit. The suit is dismissed
for want of prosecution.
4. Mr. Sharma informed the Court that Plaintiff in Testamentary Suit No.78
of 2014 has passed away. He seeks time to take suitable steps in the matter.
5. Stand over to 11th August 2026, for direction.
6. Records and proceedings of Testamentary Suit No.78 of 2014 is not
available.
[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]
Meera Jadhav
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.