Bombay High Court
NALINI PUNAMCHAND JOSHIversusSATISH ONKAR VASE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is dismissed in default for want of prosecution.
Summary
The writ petition filed by Nalini Punamchand Joshi in 2020 remained unprosecuted as the petitioner failed to appear in both the morning and afternoon sessions of the hearing. The Court observed that the petitioner appeared disinterested in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition in default for want of prosecution. No substantive merits of the petition were examined. The dismissal was pronounced by Justice Siddheshwar S. Thombre on 8 January 2026.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate consequence when a petitioner fails to prosecute a pending writ petition?
Subjects
- default judgment
- writ petition
- prosecution
- high court
- non-appearance
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:441
944-WP-1737-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
944 WRIT PETITION NO. 1737 OF 2020
Nalini Punamchand Joshi
VERSUS
Satish Onkar Vase And Others
…..
…..
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 08.01.2026
PER COURT :
1. In the morning session, when the matter was called out, none
appears for the Petitioner and, therefore, the matter was kept back. In
the afternoon session also, when the matter was called out, nobody
appears for the Petitioner.
2. This Petition is pending since 2020 and the same is not
prosecuted. It seems that the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting
the matter. Hence, the Petition is dismissed in default for want of
prosecution.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Sameer/January-2026
1
Checking your session…