Bombay High Court
MOHD ZAFAR UR REHMAN ABDUL REHMANversusSHAIKH KADU SHAIKH DADA PATEL AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed in default for want of prosecution.
Summary
The petitioner, Mohd Zafar, failed to appear before the High Court of Bombay on multiple occasions despite being given opportunities to do so. The court noted the petitioner's absence in both the morning and afternoon sessions on 6 January 2026 and again on 8 January 2026. The judge ordered the petition to be listed for dismissal in the urgent orders category. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. No substantive merits of the petition were considered as the petitioner did not prosecute the case.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate consequence when a petitioner fails to appear and prosecute a writ petition?
Subjects
- default judgment
- writ petition
- want of prosecution
- dismissal
- civil procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:583
1 902 WP 6592-2016.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
902 WRIT PETITION NO. 6592 OF 2016
MOHD ZAFAR UR REHMAN ABDUL REHMAN
VERSUS
SHAIKH KADU SHAIKH DADA PATEL AND ANOTHER
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 08.01.2026
PER COURT :
1. None appears for the petitioner.
2. On 06.01.2026, the following order was passed :
“1. None appears for the petitioner.
2. In fact, when this matter was called in the morning
session, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Even on Court’s motion, when the matter was kept
back in the afternoon session to give one more
opportunity to the petitioner, none appeared on behalf
of the petitioner.
3. List the petition on 08.01.2026, under the caption “For
Dismissal” in urgent orders category.”
3. Today also, none appears for the petitioner.
4. In view thereof, the Writ Petition stands dismissed in default for
want of prosecution.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
Pooja Kale/
Checking your session…