The civil application seeking extension of time to remove objections in a writ petition was rejected. The court noted the petition was dismissed earlier for laches and found no valid ground for extension.
The request for extension of time to remove office objections was 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.
923ca2392-23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
923 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2392 OF 2023
PARBHANNA POSHETTI DIED THROUGH LRS MAHADU PARBHANNA
DIED THROUGH LRS
VERSUS
THE COLLECTOR NANDED AND OTHERS
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Padalkar Harshad H
AGP for Respondents State: Mr. S.W. Munde
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 11th August, 2023
ORDER:
1.A Civil application is filed for seeking extension of time to
remove objections pertaining to Court fees.
2. Writ Petition (St.) No. 1998 of 2018 was dismissed on
14.1.2019, for non removal of office objections. This Court [Coram:
S.V.Gangapurwala (as his Lordship then was) & A.M.Dhavale, JJ] had
passed an order on 29.03.2019, for restoring the Writ Petition on the
condition that all office objections shall be removed within three weeks.
Since the objections were not removed, the writ petition stood dismissed.
3.The learned AGP representing the respondents, vehemently
opposes the application contending that on the first occasion, the writ
petition was dismissed for non removal of office objections. On the second
occasion, the Civil Application was allowed. Even that order is not
complied with and hence, the laches cannot be countenanced.
Page 1 of 2
923ca2392-23
4.We are informed that that the decree of the civil court had
attained finality. Execution proceedings were given up mid way through,
by the Petitioners. A representation was made before the District
Collector and the Writ Petition (now dismissed in view of the above) was
filed for seeking direction to the District Collector to decide the
representation.
5.Taking into account the purpose for which the writ petition was
filed, we do not find that any purpose would be served by restoring the
writ petition and that too after a lapse of more than 4 years which is
apparent on the face of record. For 4 years and 4 months, the order of this
Court has not been complied with.
6.We do not find any ground set out in the civil application to
consider the request for extending the time to remove the office objections.
The civil application is rejected.
7.Needless to state, if the petitioners have any right vested in them,
they would be entitled to espouse their cause before the appropriate court,
provided there is no legal impediment. However, this may not be
considered as the High Court having approved such a new limb of
litigation for the petitioners.
( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. )
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
JPChavan
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the time limit to remove office objections can be extended in a writ petition dismissed for laches.
Whether there is any cogent ground for restoring a writ petition filed four years after a dismissal order.
PARBHANNA POSHETTI DIED THROUGH LRS MAHADU PARBHANNA
THE COLLECTOR NANDED AND OTHERS
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court