Bombay High Court

BHAUSAHEB BHIKAJI PAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner, Bhausaheb Bhikaji Pawar, challenged two consecutive orders passed under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, the first being an order under Section 5 allowed after a panchnama and the second a challenge under Section 23 dismissed by the Sub‑Divisional Officer. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking relief from these orders. During the hearing, the petitioner failed to appear on two consecutive dates, indicating a loss of interest in prosecuting the petition. The Court observed that the petitioner’s non‑appearance amounted to a want of prosecution. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition may be dismissed for want of prosecution when the petitioner fails to appear before the Court

Legislation cited

Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 — s. 23, 5

Subjects

Writ petition
Want of prosecution
Mamlatdar’s Courts Act
Section 5
Section 23
Dismissal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41243



                                                       1
                                                                      903-wp-4964-2023

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 4964 OF 2023

                                       Bhausaheb Bhikaji Pawar
                                                VERSUS
                      The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
                                                   ...
                     Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent-State
                     Mr. J. R. Shah, Advocate for Respondent nos.4 to 6
                                                   …..
                                         CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                             DATED : 04TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     .         Heard Mr. J. R. Shah learned advocate for respondent

                     Nos. 4 to 6. None for the petitioner.

                     2.        Yesterday this matter was on board. This court observed

                     thus:

                                     The petitioner suffered two consecutive
                               orders under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906.
                               An application filed by the respondents under
                               Section 5 of the Act came to be allowed by due
                               procedure and by conducting the panchnama.
                               Challenge under Section 23 of the Act filed by
                               the petitioner before Sub-Divisional Officer was
                               also turned down. As against that, the petitioner
                               is before this Court.
                               2. Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the
                               respondents – original applicants would submit
                               that the first order is of January, 2022 which is
                               in operation. When the matter is called out,
                               nobody appeared for the petitioner. Stand over
                               to tomorrow i.e. 04.09.2026 for dismissal.
                                 2
                                                 903-wp-4964-2023

3.      Today also when the matter is called out, none for the

petitioner. It appears that the petitioner has lost his interest to

prosecute the writ petition. In view of above, writ petition

stands dismissed for want of prosecution.



                                     ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

Rushikesh/2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…