The High Court refused to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 because litigation regarding the same matter was pending in Second Appeal, noting existing orders warranted alternative remedies.
The writ petition is disposed of with the option open for the petitioner to avail of alternate remedies.
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 Sr929WP7628.2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7628 OF 2018
Uttamrao Lungare & Anr.
Petitioners...
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Respondents...
Mr K. J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the petitioners Mr S. M. Ganachari, AGP for respondent/State
CORAM : R. M. BORDE & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.
DATE : 12TH JULY, 2018.
PER COURT :-
. Since the litigation is pending between the parties in the
form of Second Appeal and in view of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 5636 of 2005, dt. 04.09.2005, no interference is called for in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Keeping the option open for the petitioner to avail of the alternate remedies available in law, the writ petition is disposed of.
[ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ R. M. BORDE ] JUDGE JUDGE
Punde
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition pending litigations in the Second Appeal before a lower court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Uttamrao Lungare & Anr.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
R. M. Borde
A. M. Dhavale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
