Bombay High Court
TAMIZABI MANZOOR AHMED KHAN POA NAZEER AHMEDKHAN MANJUR AHMED KHANversusSAYED AMANAT SHARFODDIN USTAND DIED THROUGH LRS MAQBOOLBI AMANAT USTAD AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court directed the District Judge to conclude the pending appeal within six months and disposed the writ petition without addressing the merits.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the District Court to conclude a pending appeal and an associated application for temporary injunction, which had been rejected. The petitioner argued that a time‑bound disposal of the appeal would serve his purpose. The respondents consented to the proposition. The High Court, after hearing counsel, ordered the District Judge to dispose of Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.11 of 2023 within six months of the parties placing a copy of the order on record. The writ petition was consequently disposed without any comment on the merits of the underlying dispute. No substantive merits of the case were examined.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can direct a lower court to expedite the disposal of a pending appeal.
- Whether such a direction falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Subjects
- writ petition
- injunction
- district court
- appeal
- interim relief
- court directions
- civil procedure
- Article 226
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40009
(1) 915-WP-2688-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
915 WRIT PETITION NO. 2688 OF 2024
Tamizabi Manzoor Ahmed Khan Poa Nazeer Ahmedkhan Manjur Ahmed Khan
VERSUS
Sayed Amanat Sharfoddin Ustand Died Thr. Lrs. Maqboolbi Amanat Ustad &
Ors.
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6018 OF 2025
IN WP-2688-2024
Tamizabi Manzoor Ahmed Khan Poa Nazeer Ahmedkhan Manjur Ahmed Khan
VERSUS
Sayed Amanat Sharfoddin Ustand Died Through Lrs Maqboolbi Amanat Ustad
& Ors.
…..
Mr. A. A. Shaikh h/f., Mr. Anandsingh Bayas, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. G. R. Sayed, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1-A to 1-I.
…..
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 1, 2026.
PC :-
1. Heard.
2. At the outset, Mr. Bayas, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly
submits that the petitioner restricts his petition to a very limited extent. He
would submit that, as against the order rejecting the plaint under Order VII
Rule 10 of the CPC, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the District
Court. He would submit that, in the said appeal, an application seeking
temporary injunction was filed, which came to be rejected, and hence, the
Kiran Kawre
(2) 915-WP-2688-2024
writ petition has been filed before this Court. Today, he submits that his
purpose would be served if directions are given to the District Court to
conclude the proceedings in the appeal in a time-bound manner.
3. Mr. G. R. Sayed, learned counsel for the respondents, would fairly
agrees to such proposition.
4. The request advanced by Mr. Bayas, learned counsel for petitioner, is
absolute and moderate.
5. The learned District Judge, Udgir, is requested to conclude the
proceedings in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.11 of 2023 within a period of
six months from the date on which the parties place a copy of this order on
record.
6. In view of this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
7. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not commented on the merits of the
case of either sides.
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
Kiran Kawre
Checking your session…