The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in a writ petition, directed the Trial Court to dispose of the pending civil suit of 2011 within six months and prevented parties from seeking unnecessary adjournments.
Directed the Trial Court to dispose of Civil Suit No. 840 of 2011 within six months and to prevent unnecessary adjournments.
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.
21.WP.1992.18.doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1992 OF 2018
Sachin Ananda Gole and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors...Respondents
Mr. Rahul S. Kate, Advocate for PetitionersMr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3Mr. Avinash B. Avhad, Advocate for Respondent No.4CORAM:MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE:FEBRUARY 17, 2023.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Kate, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Mr. Rayrikar, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Avhad, learned Advocate for Respondent No.4.
2. The present Writ Petition takes exception to the twin orders dated 25.08.2016 and 17.08.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court
rejecting the Exh.5 Application and the same being upheld by the learned Appellate Court, which are concurrent orders.3. Record indicates that suit has been filed in the year 2011. Mr. Avhad, learned Advocate for Respondent No.4 would submit that the lis between the parties is with respect to the public road.
4. Be that as it may, considering the aforesaid timeline, suit being
1 of 2
21.WP.1992.18.doc
filed in the year 2011, Exh.5 having being decided in the year 2016
and the Appellate Court having passed the impugned order in the year
2017 and almost 12 years having been passed, it would be in the
interest of justice if the learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the
pending suit within a time bound programme.
5. Hence the following order:-
(i) The learned Trial Court is requested to dispose of R.C.S. 840 of 2011 preferably within a period of six months from today;ii) Parties shall not be granted unnecessary adjournment unless it is necessary;(iii)The learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in the order dated 25.08.2016 as also the order dated 17.08.2017 while deciding thesuit proceedings;
(iv)All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open;(iv) It is clarified that this Court has not opined anything on the twin orders under challenge.6. With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
SONALI Digitally signedby SONALI SATISH SATISH KILAJEDate: 2023.02.20 KILAJE 10:19:56 +0530
2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the Trial Court to dispose of the pending suit within a time-bound framework given the delays.
Whether the observation in the impugned orders of lower courts should influence the proceedings in the suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sachin Ananda Gole and Ors.
State of Maharashtra and Ors.
MILIND N. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court