Bombay High Court
SAYEED KHA AMANULLA KHA PATHANversusIMABEG KAMUBEG MIRZA DIED THROUGH LRS MUKHTARBEG IMAMBEG MIRZA
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking relief against the respondent. The court issued a notice to the respondent on 6 March 2023, but the notice could not be served because the petitioner failed to provide a spare copy. The court directed the petitioner to supply the copy and later to take steps to serve the respondent, but the petitioner did not comply within the stipulated periods. When the matter was called in subsequent sessions, no representative appeared for the petitioner, indicating a loss of interest in prosecuting the petition. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution, allowing restoration only upon payment of Rs.5,000 costs.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate consequence when a petitioner fails to comply with procedural directions for service of notice and does not appear to prosecute a writ petition?
Subjects
- procedural law
- service of notice
- dismissal for want of prosecution
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43155
1
904-wp-1621-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1621 OF 2023
Sayeed Kha Amanulla Kha Pathan
VERSUS
Imabeg Kamubeg Mirza Died Through Lrs Mukhtarbeg
Imambeg Mirza
...
None for the petitioner
…..
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATED : 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-
. This matter was called out in the first session. None
appeared to the petitioner to prosecute the Writ Petition. On
06.03.2023, this Court issued notice to the respondents.
Record reveals that the notice could not be issued for the
reason that the petitioner had not supplied copies for issuance
of notice to the respondent. Thereafter, on 24.03.2024, this
Court passed order that if spare copy is supplied, notice be
issued to respondent returnable four weeks thereafter.
2. Further record reveals that notice issued to the sole
respondent returned unserved with the endorsement as not
residing on the given address. On 24.04.2023, this Court
directed learned Advocate for the petitioner to take
2
904-wp-1621-2023
appropriate steps within a period of two weeks therefrom.
However, the record reveals that the petitioner failed to take
any steps in respect of unserved sole respondent within the
given time. The endorsement is dated 06.07.2023, and
thereafter there is no entry on record indicating that the
petitioner has taken any steps for effecting service upon the
unserved respondent.
3. In the second session when the matter is called out,
there is no one to represent the petitioner. It appears that the
petitioner has lost his interest to prosecute the Writ Petition.
4. In view of above, Writ Petition stands dismissed for
want of prosecution. Any request for restoration shall be
subject to the costs of Rs.5,000/-.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
Rushikesh/2026
Checking your session…