Bombay High Court

EZLINDA FERNANDESversusMARIO JOHN PEREIRA AND ANR

Disposal: Dismissed for non prosecution

Holding

The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner, Ezlinda Fernandes, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The case was repeatedly adjourned at the petitioner's request, with dates extending from January to July 2026. On several occasions, the petitioner's counsel, appointed through Legal Aid Services, failed to appear or contact the petitioner. The court had previously warned that failure to prosecute would result in dismissal. On 18 August 2026, the petitioner again failed to appear, and the court concluded that the petitioner had lost interest in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to repeated adjournments and non‑appearance of the petitioner and counsel.

Subjects

adjournment
dismissal for want of prosecution
writ petition
legal aid
high court

Judgment

2026:BHC-GOA:1643
                                             8 WP 729 2023

                Jose

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.729 OF 2023

           EZLINDA FERNANDES                                     ... PETITIONER
             Versus
           MARIO JOHN PEREIRA AND ANR                            ... RESPONDENTS


           None for the Petitioner.


                                  CORAM:- S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                  DATED :- 18th August, 2026

           P.C.:


           1.          On 23rd January, 2026, on request of learned Advocate
           appearing for Petitioner, matter was adjourned to 26th February,
           2026. On 26th February, 2026, again a request was made for
           adjournment. Accordingly, matter was adjourned to 6th April,
           2026. On 6th April, 2026, again at the request of learned Advocate
           appearing for Petitioner, matter was adjourned to 10th June, 2026.
           On 10th June, 2026, again request for adjournment was repeated
           and matter was posted on 13th July, 2026. On 13th July, 2026,
           none appeared for Petitioner and hence, matter was posted on 20th
           July, 2026. On 20th July, 2026, learned Counsel appearing for
           Petitioner made a statement that he has been appointed through
           Legal Aid Services but was unable to contact Petitioner. Hence,
           sought one more opportunity to make an attempt to contact


                                               Page 1 of 2
                                             18th August, 2026
                                                                8 WP 729 2023


                        Petitioner and report to the Court.


                        2.         Today, none appears for Petitioner. This Court had already
                        recorded that matter would be considered for dismissal if Petitioner
                        or Counsel appointed through Legal Aid fails to work out the
                        matter.


                        3.        In light of aforesaid backdrop, it is clear that Petitioner has lost
                        interest in pursuing the petition. Hence, petition stands dismissed
                        for want of prosecution.



                                                                      S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.




Signed by: JOSE FRANCISCO
DSOUZA
                                                                  Page 2 of 2
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 18/08/2026 14:12:23                                       18th August, 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…