Bombay High Court
SAYED NASIR SAYED SULTANversusBHAUSAHEB SITARAM SAYAMBAR AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction and directed the trial court to decide the civil suit within one year.
Summary
The petitioner, Sayed Nasir Sayed Sultan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 21‑01‑2017 of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashti, which had been affirmed by the District Judge in a miscellaneous civil appeal. The petitioner sought a direction that the trial court should decide the underlying Regular Civil Suit No. 134 of 2016 within a stipulated period, arguing that such a direction would serve the purpose of the petition. The Court, after hearing counsel, declined to examine the merits of the underlying suit and instead exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to impose a time‑frame. It ordered that the trial court decide the suit within one year from the date of the order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any further orders.
Issues considered
- The Court’s power to direct a trial court to decide a pending civil suit within a specified time period.
Subjects
- writ petition
- civil suit
- supervisory jurisdiction
- time‑limit direction
- procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:494
1 of 2 1004-WP.3778.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1004 WRIT PETITION NO. 3778 OF 2021
SAYED NASIR SAYED SULTAN
VERSUS
BHAUSAHEB SITARAM SAYAMBAR AND OTHERS
...
Mr. G. R. Syed, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. M. L. Sangit, AGP for Respondent-State.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 8th JANUARY, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties.
2. By the present petition, the Petitioner assails the order dated
21.01.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashti,
District Beed on the application below Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Suit
No. 134 of 2016. The said order was confirmed by the learned District
Judge-5, Beed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2017 by
judgment dated 22.10.2019.
3. After arguing for some time, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner submits that the purpose would be served if the Trial Court is
directed to decide the suit itself within a stipulated period.
4. Therefore, without going into merits of the matter, the Trial
Court is directed to decide Regular Civil Suit No. 134 of 2016 within a
period of one year from today.
Tauseef
2 of 2 1004-WP.3778.2021
5. In view thereof, the petition is disposed of.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…