Bombay High Court

SHRI. RIYAZ AHEMAD S/O. MOHAMMAD HUSAIN SHAIKHversusSHAHANAZ D/O. ABDULSHAKUR RAMPURE

Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: ANIL LAXMAN PANSARE

Holding

The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner filed a writ petition in 2017 arising from a decree in a civil suit that granted an injunction restraining the respondents from entering the petitioner's house. The petitioner later filed a darkhast for execution, alleging breach of the injunction, but the execution was dismissed on the ground that the respondents had been residing in the house for four years prior to the darkhast. The dismissal was appealed, but the appellate court also dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition but failed to take any steps to prosecute the matter after a single listing in 2019. The court observed that the petitioner had lost interest and, having not prosecuted the petition, dismissed it for want of prosecution.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate remedy when a petitioner fails to prosecute a writ petition after it has been listed?

Subjects

injunction
execution of decree
civil procedure
petition dismissed for want of prosecution
writ petition

Judgment

                                                         38-WP-4840-2017.doc

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                  WRIT PETITION NO.4840 OF 2017

Shri. Riyaz Ahemad S/O.
Mohammad Husain Shaikh                            …..Petitioner
      Vs.
Shahanaz D/O. Abdulshakur Rampure                 …..Respondent

None for the Petitioner/Respondent.

                                CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE, J.
                                 DATED : 30th APRIL 2026
P.C.:-

1.       The present Petition was filed in the year 2017 and listed only

once, i.e., on 21st June 2019. On that date, the learned counsel for

the Petitioner had filed a leave note. Thereafter, no steps have been

taken by the Petitioner to get the matter listed.


2.       Perused the record. It appears that the cause for filing the

Petition arises from the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 449

of 2007 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur.


3.       It appears that the Petitioner had filed the said suit, which was

decreed by granting an order of injunction restraining the

Respondents from entering the Petitioner’s house. Thereafter, a

Regular Darkhast was filed for execution of the decree.

Suresh                                                                    1/2
                                                         38-WP-4840-2017.doc

4.       The Petitioner alleged that the Respondents had entered the

house in breach of the decree. The defense taken by the Respondents

was that they had been residing in the said house for four years prior

to the filing Regular Darkhast in the year 2010.


5.       Accordingly, the execution proceedings was dismissed. The said

order was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal

No.239 of 2013. The Appeal was dismissed and, thereafter, the

present Petition has been filed.


6.       With the passage of time, it appears that the Petitioner has lost

interest in prosecuting the matter and no steps have been taken in

that regard.


7.       The Petition is accordingly dismissed as not prosecuted.




                                         (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)




Suresh                                                                    2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…