The bench declined to issue directions for expeditious disposal of a miscellaneous civil appeal, terming the petition devoid of substance and unnecessary reliance on extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
No decree, direction or order in favour of petitioners; petition rejected.
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
11 wp.5054.14.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5054 OF 2014
SULOCHANABAI RAMRAO PAWAR AND ANOTHER VERSUS
ASHOK KACHRU MHASKE AND ANOTHER
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. B.G. Sagade.
CORAM : R. M. BORDE and V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE : 01st July, 2014.
P.C.:
. Direction is sought for expeditious disposal of Miscellaneous Civil
Appeal No.55 of 2013 pending before the District Judge-1 Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. It does appear that the appeal is presented in the year 2013 and not even one year old. We refrain from issuing directions as requested in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of substance and the
same stands rejected.
[ V. L. ACHLIYA, J. ] [ R. M. BORDE, J. ]
ndm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether directions for expeditious disposal of a pending appeal can be issued in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sulochanabai Ramao Pawar and Another
Ashok Kachru Mhaske and Another
R. M. Borde
V. L. Achliya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
