Discharged writ petition for non-prosecution. The petitioners failed to appear or engage counsel after notice was served, causing the court to dismiss the petition without adjudicating merits regarding temporary injunction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1080 OF 1993
1. Shashikant Shankar Kshirsagar
and ors...Petitioners
vs
1. Ramchandra Mahadev Kshirsagar,
and anr...Respondents
Mr.P.A.Sawant for respondent no.1.
CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 21, 2005.
P.C.
1. This petition is arising out of the order passed
in Exhibit-8 application filed by respondent
no.1-plaintiff by which the trial Court had allowed
that application by its judgment and order dated
18.1.1989. Exhibit-8-application was filed under
Order 39 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By
that order, the petitioners-defendants were
restrained from obstructing respondent
no.1-plaintiff’s possession in the suit land Gat
No.651 (Old Gat No.1051) excluding the portion of 35
Guntahs on the northern side of original Survey
No.191/14 till the decision of the suit. Feeling
aggrieved by that direction, respondent
no.1-plaintiff filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.21/1989.
That appeal was allowed and the temporary injunction
:2:
granted by the trial Court by order dated 18.1.1989
was modified and the defendants were restrained from
disturbing possession of the plaintiff over whole of
the suit land Gat No.651, (Old Gat No.1051) till
decision of the suit by its judgment and order dated
8.1.1993. This Court, while admitting the writ
petition, granted the interim relief in terms of
prayer clause (c) as a result of which the order
dated 8.1.1993 came to be stayed. The Advocate, who
had filed the writ petition, subsequently became the
Judge of this court and, therefore, the notices were
issued to the petitioners. Office noting shows that
the notices were duly served on the petitioners.
However, the petitioners have neither appeared
in-person nor have they engaged any other advocate to
prosecute the instant writ petition. By passage of
time, the petitioners seem to have lost interest in
the writ petition and/or it is quite possible that
the suit itself must have been disposed of by now.
It is against this backdrop, I am constrained to
dismiss this writ petition for nonprosecution. Order
accordingly. Rule is discharged.
(D.B.Bhosale, J.)
Shashikant Shankar Kshirsagar
Ramchandra Mahadev Kshirsagar
D.B. Bhosale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court