Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

TARABAI NANASAHEB PAWAR AND ANOTHERversusSEEMA BHAURAO SHINDE AND OTHRS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is dismissed in default for want of prosecution.

Summary

The petitioners filed writ petitions in 2020 concerning matters that had been pending since 2016 and 2021. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Bhagwan A. Husale, was absent and no representative appeared for the petitioners in both the morning and afternoon sessions on 16 April 2026. The court noted the prolonged pendency and the petitioners' apparent lack of interest in prosecuting the case. Consequently, the court placed the petitions under the ‘For Dismissal’ category and, on 18 April 2026, dismissed the petitions in default for want of prosecution. The dismissal was ordered without any substantive hearing on the merits.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriate remedy when a petitioner fails to appear and prosecute a writ petition for an extended period?

Subjects

  • dismissal
  • want of prosecution
  • writ petition
  • default
  • high court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:17246
                                                      1 of 1                      907-WP.7635.2020




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                    907 WRIT PETITION NO. 7635 OF 2020

                          TARABAI NANASAHEB PAWAR AND ANOTHER
                                             VERSUS
                             SEEMA BHAURAO SHINDE AND OTHRS
                                                 ...
                Mr. Bhagwan A. Husale, Advocate for the Petitioners is Absent.
                                                 ...

                                              CORAM :          SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                              DATE     :       18th APRIL, 2026
                P.C.:-

                1.            On 16.04.2026, the following order was passed:-

                         1. In the morning session, when the matters was called out,
                         none appears for the Petitioners and, therefore, the matters were
                         kept back. In the afternoon session also, when the matter was
                         called out, nobody appears for the Petitioner.
                         2. These petitions are pending since 2016 and 2021. The
                         matters be placed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’ in the urgent
                         orders category on 18.04.2026.


                2.            Today also none appears for the Petitioners. This matter

                pertains to the year 2020. It seems that Petitioners are not interested

                in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the present petition is dismissed in

                default for want of prosecution.

                                                        (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)




      Tauseef


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.