Bombay High Court

DUDHARAM S/O BAGUJI HANWATEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 10 September 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner, Dudharam, filed Writ Petition No. 13193 of 2019 before the Bombay High Court. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner, and the petitioner failed to attend any of the hearings, including the last one. The Court observed that the petitioner appeared uninterested in prosecuting the petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition on the ground of non‑prosecution. An interim order remains in force for a further four weeks, as previously ordered.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition may be dismissed for non‑prosecution when the petitioner fails to appear before the Court.

Subjects

writ petition
dismissal
non‑prosecution
High Court
civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                                            30-wp 13193-19.doc
ARJUN
MACHHINDRA
KADAM                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed by                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ARJUN
MACHHINDRA
KADAM
Date: 2026.09.10
18:05:18 +0530
                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 13193 OF 2019

                      Dudharam S/o. Baguji Hanwaate                         … Petitioner
                               Versus
                      State of Maharashtra & Ors.                           ... Respondents

                                           __________________________

                      None for the Petitioner.
                      Smt. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                          __________________________

                                                    CORAM     : M. S. KARNIK AND
                                                                SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
                                                    DATED     : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

                      P.C. :

                      1.           None for the petitioner.

                      2.           There was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner even

                      on the last occasion. It appears that the petitioner is not interested

                      in prosecuting the petition. Hence, dismissed for non-prosecution.

                      3.           Interim order already in operation to continue for a

                      period of four weeks from today.



                           (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                     (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




                       Amk                                                            1/1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…