Bombay High Court
SHRI. RAM DASHRATH KEDARI AND ORS.versusSHRI. PARSURAM D. KEDARI AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed off as Withdrawn
Holding
The petition is disposed of as withdrawn upon the petitioners' unconditional request.
Summary
The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 6819 of 2016 sought to withdraw their petition before the Bombay High Court. The petitioner's counsel was absent, and the respondent's counsel asserted that the petitioners themselves were present and wished to withdraw. The court gave the petitioner's counsel an opportunity to appear, but he claimed no notice and no instruction from the petitioners. The court then personally interacted with three individuals claiming to be the petitioners, who produced their original Aadhaar cards to confirm identity and expressed an unconditional desire to withdraw. Their Aadhaar copies were recorded, and the petitioner's counsel was discharged. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition as withdrawn, along with any pending applications.
Issues considered
- Whether a petition can be withdrawn unconditionally by the petitioners in the absence of their counsel
- Procedural requirements for withdrawal of a writ petition in the High Court
Subjects
- withdrawal of petition
- high court procedure
- representation
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- adhaar verification
Judgment
902_WP_6819_16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6819 OF 2016
Ram Dashrath Kedari and others … Petitioners
vs.
Parsuram D. Kedari and others … Respondents
Mr. Tejesh Dande a/w. Mr. Bharat Gadhavi, i/b. Tejesh Dande and
Associates for petitioners.
Adv. D. J. Shejul a/w. Mr. Jitendra Mahatre for respondent No.1.
Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. GP a/w. Mr. A. A. Alaspurkar, AGP for respondent
No.4 – State.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
DATE : 27th MARCH, 2026
P.C. :
. This petition was circulated today on the ground that the
petitioners wish to withdraw the same.
2. Today, when it was called out in the morning session, we found
that the learned counsel for the petitioners was not in Court, while
the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that all
the petitioners themselves are present in Court and that they wish to
withdraw the petition. In that light, we kept back the matter to give
an opportunity to the learned counsel for the petitioners to appear
before this Court.
3. In the afternoon session, the petition was called out again,
when Mr. Dande, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
he has no idea of circulation of this petition and no notice was given
to him. He submitted that the petitioners have not instructed him
Digitally
signed by
PRIYA Date:
PRIYA KAMBLI
KAMBLI 2026.03.27
18:49:11
+0530
1/2
902_WP_6819_16.doc
with regard to this petition. In that light, this Court may discharge
his appearance on behalf of the petitioners in this petition.
4. We interacted with the three persons claiming to be the
petitioners. They submitted that they wish to unconditionally
withdraw the petition and produced their original Aadhar Cards to
ascertain their identities. Upon ascertaining the same, the original
Aadhar Cards were returned back to them and photocopies tendered
by them were taken on record.
5. In view of the above, Advocate Mr. Dande is discharged from
appearing for the petitioners in this petition. The petition is disposed
of as withdrawn. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Priya Kambli
2/2
Checking your session…