NANA BHAGWAN BANGAR AND OTHERSversusMACHINDRA APPARAO ANDHARE

2026:BHC-AUG:37419



                                                       1
                                                                      958-wp-12616-2024

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 12616 OF 2024

                                 Nana Bhagwan Bangar And Others
                                             VERSUS
                                    Machindra Apparao Andhare
                                                 ...
                     Mr. V. M. Humbe, Advocate for Respondent
                                                …..
                                        CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                             DATED : 18TH AUGUST, 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     .         Feeling aggrieved by the order rejecting appointment of

                     Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure

                     Code, the plaintiffs have lodged this Writ Petition in the year

                     2024.

                     2.        On 21.11.2024, when the matter was circulated,

                     nobody appears for the petitioners. This Court observed that

                     “pendency of this petition shall not be treated as stay to any

                     order      to   any   connected   proceeding”.    Thereafter,   on

                     21.01.2025, notices were issued and the respondent caused

                     appearance through learned Advocate Mr. V. M. Humbe.

                     When the matter was taken on board dated 17.08.2026, this

                     Court observed thus:
                        2
                                       958-wp-12616-2024

       This matter was called in the first session
of the day when nobody appeared for the
petitioner. Mr.Humbe, learned counsel for the
respondent was present. Considering that the
suit of 2014 filed by the petitioner in the Civil
Court is still pending, the matter was kept back
in the second session of the day. In the second
session, nobody appeared for the petitioner.
However, Mr.Humbe, learned counsel is present
for the respondent.
2.     In a suit filed for a decree of perpetual
injunction, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed
application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of
Civil Procedure seeking appointment of
Commissioner for the purpose of local inspection
and filing report before the Civil Court. After
hearing the parties and observing that in the
facts and circumstances, grant of prayer would
amount to permit collection of evidence, the
Civil Court denied to grant the relief. As against
this, this petition was filed on 25.10.2024.
3.     On 21.11.2024 this court issued notice
observing that pendency of this petition shall not
be treated as stay to any order to any connected
proceedings. Again on the next date, i.e.
16.12.2024, nobody appeared for the petitioner
when the matter was called out. The matter was
adjourned. Again observing that pendency of
petition not to be treated as stay to any order or
proceedings. Thereafter, the matter came up
before the court on 21.01.2025. This court
recorded submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner at paragraph 3 which reads thus:-
     “ He further submits that the proceedings
     before the Trial Court are stayed. It is his
     contention that no prejudice will cause to
     the defendant if proceedings are stayed.
4.     Relying upon such statement, this court
issued notice to the respondents, making it
returnable on 24.03.2025. At clause no.5, the
trial court was directed not to proceed with the
                               3
                                              958-wp-12616-2024

      trial till next date of hearing. Thereafter, it was
      observed that the petitioner failed to take steps
      to serve the respondents. He did not deposit the
      copies for issuance of notice to the respondents.
      Hence, on 20.03.2025, this court directed that if
      the copies are not supplied within time by the
      petitioner, the petition shall stand dismissed
      without further reference to the court.
      Thereafter, it appears that notice was issued and
      Mr.Humbe, learned counsel caused appearance
      for the respondents. On 02.05.2025, interim
      relief was directed to continue till next date.
      Thereafter, the matter could reach on board on
      16.09.2025 when nobody appeared for the
      petitioner and the matter was adjourned to
      15.10.2025 for dismissal. There was no
      continuation of interim relief. Again, on the next
      date, the matter seemed to be listed on board
      but could not be taken due to paucity of time.
      5.     I have gone through to the petition.
      Apparently, prior to the order dated 21.01.2025,
      there was no stay granted by this court. On the
      other hand, vide order dated 16.12.2024, this
      court expressly mentioned that pendnecy of
      petition shall not be treated as stay or any
      interim relief. In the light of the above, I find
      that incorrect statement was made before this
      court that the suit was stayed. Based on such
      false statement, some interim protection is
      obtained by the petitioner.
      6. Stand over to 18.08.2026.

3.    Today, the matter was specifically kept at 02:30 p.m.

However, when called out, nobody appears for the petitioners.

It appears that the petitioners have lost their interest in

prosecuting the Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition stands

dismissed.
                               4
                                              958-wp-12616-2024

4.      As observed in the earlier orders, this Court has never

granted stay to the suit proceedings; however, wrong

statement was made on behalf of the petitioners that relief

was already granted.

5.      Learned Advocate Mr. V. M. Humbe, for respondent

seeks direction from this Court to the Trial Court to decide the

suit within a period of eight months from today.

6.      Learned Judge of the Trial Court is requested to

conclude the suit proceedings as expeditiously as possible and

in any case within a period of 10 (Ten) months from today.



                                   ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

Rushikesh/2026