Bombay High Court

SOPAN VISHWANATH GAIKWADversusVINAYAK SHRIDHAR PALKAR

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner, Sopan Gaikwad, filed a writ petition but failed to appear in court on the scheduled date of 13 August 2026, and no counsel was present to represent him. The court noted the absence of representation and, after listing the petition for dismissal, ordered it to be dismissed for want of prosecution. No substantive issues were argued or decided. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without any merits being examined.

Issues considered

Can a writ petition be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the absence of the petitioner’s counsel?

Subjects

writ petition
dismissal
want of prosecution
absence of counsel

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37587



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                               WRIT PETITION NO.10510 OF 2014


            Sopan s/o Vishwanath Gaikwad                  … PETITIONER

                     VERSUS

            Vinayak s/o Shridhar Palkar                   … RESPONDENT

                                                .......


                                      CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                      DATE      : 20th AUGUST, 2026

            PER COURT :


                     Recording absence of counsel for the petitioner on 13/8/2026, this

            petition was listed today for dismissal. Even today none present for the

            petitioner. As such, the petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution.




                                                    (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)




            fmp/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…