The Bombay High Court declined to grant a writ petition seeking direction to expedite civil proceedings. The bench refused relief due to lack of awareness regarding the pendency and stage of the underlying case.
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-76-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.76 OF 2017
Dnyanoba Tulshiram Jadhav,
Age-71, Occ. Pensioner,
r/o.Kodali, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur now residing
at Pune ..Petitioner
Vs.
Pandurang s/o. Rajaram Hiramane,
Age-61 years, Oc. Agri.
and ors...Respondents
Mr.V.D.Salunke, Advocate for petitioner
CORAM : V.M. KANADE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 12, 2017
PER COURT :
Heard.
2.The petitioner is seeking direction to
the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Udgir to
expedite the proceedings in R.C.S. No.219 of 2007.
3.We are not inclined to grant the relief
claimed by the petitioner since we are not aware
of pendency of proceedings before the learned
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Udgir so also about
the stage of the R.C.S. No.219 of 2007 said
proceedings. The Writ Petitions stands disposed
of.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [V.M. KANADE, J.]
kbp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant direction to expedite civil proceedings when pendency is not on record.
Whether this court can issue writs without knowledge of proceedings stage before subordinate court.
Dnyanoba Tulshiram Jadhav
Pandurang s/o. Rajaram Hiramane
V.M. KANADE
SANGITRAO S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court