The High Court of Bombay dismissed a press for interim relief. The court noted the petitioners had previously filed an application but failed to pursue it. Four years later, with no untoward developments cited, the court held it was not a fit case to grant interim relief.
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.
skc
14-CAW-2386-14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2386 OF 2014 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 9539 OF 2010
Sadashiv Sudam Yadav, since deceased, through LRs .. Applicants Bhagibai S. Yadav & Ors. ..(Original Petitioners) vs. Suresh S. Dhayalkar & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. G. M. Savagave for Applicants and original Petitioners. Mr. Himanshu Kode for Respondent No. 1.
Ms Vaishali Nimbalkar – AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 18 FEBRUARY, 2015
P.C . :-
1] This petition was admitted on 8 June 2011. At this stage, there is no record of the petitioners pressing for any interim relief. In fact, opportunity was granted to the petitioners to apply for early hearing. However, the petitioners do not appear to have availed of such liberty.
2] Instead, within two months from the date of the admission of
the petition, the petitioners filed the present civil application seeking for interim relief. The application was filed on 4 August 2011, but again the same was not even pursued.
1/2
skc
14-CAW-2386-14
3] Today, after the period of four years, the petitioners press for interim relief, relying upon the averments in the civil application made way back on 4 August 2011.
4] If from 4 August 2011, till date, nothing untoward has happened then obviously the petitioners cannot, at this stage, press for any interim reliefs.
5] The learned counsel for the respondents points out that this civil application, though filed on 4 August 2011 has not even served upon them.
6] Therefore, upon consideration of the aforesaid circumstances, this is not a fit case for grant of interim relief. Civil Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M. S. SONAK, J.)
Chandka
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether interim relief should be granted given the delay in applying for it after the earlier civil application was filed but not pursued.
Sadashiv Sudam Yadav since deceased through LRs
Bhagibai S. Yadav
Suresh S. Dhayalkar
M. S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
