Disposed

Shaikh Shakeel Shaikh Budhen v. Mohd Rauf Mohd Zahur and Others

Bombay HC3 Jan 2024WP/851/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction for expeditious hearing of a 10-year-old civil suit and refusal of adjournments. Court held writ to judicial officer is not maintainable. Allowed substituted application to trial court under Section 151 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to move application to trial court for expeditious hearing and refusal of adjournments; present writ petition disposed.

Shaikh Shakeel Shaikh Budhen Vs Mohd Rauf Mohd… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

904-WP-851-2022.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-AUG:183-DB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 851 OF 2022

¶5

SHAIKH SHAKEEL SHAIKH BUDHEN

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

MOHD RAUF MOHD ZAHUR AND OTHERS

¶8

Mr. Sachin S. Randive, Advocate for Petitioner

¶9

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

¶10

DATE:03.01.2024

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

1.The Petitioner prays that the learned Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Aurangabad, be directed to decide the Regular
Civil Suit No.485 of 2013, within a time frame. His grievance is

¶13

that the Petitioner is suffering from serious ailments affecting his
kidneys, he has abdominal issues and blood pressure. The original
Plaintiff deliberately seeks adjournments on 3 to 4 occasions.
When the suit is posted for dismissal, he appears and leads
evidence. Thereafter, he again remains absent. Again when the
matter is to be dismissed, he remains present and leads further
evidence. From 2014, oral evidence of the Plaintiff is being

¶14

1 of 2

¶15

(( 2 ))904-WP-851-2022

¶16

recorded. Once the suit was dismissed in default and was
subsequently restored.

¶17

2.It is well settled that a Writ of Mandamus to a Judicial
Officer is not to be issued. As such, we permit the Petitioner to move
an application to the learned Trial Court for an expeditious hearing in
the matter and a direction to refuse adjournments to the Plaintiff on
unreasonable grounds. If such an application is filed, the Trial Court
would consider the said application after hearing all the parties and
pass appropriate orders for expediting the hearing in the case as it is
11 years old.

¶18

3.In view of the above, thisPetition is disposed off.

¶19

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ]

¶20

SMS

¶21

 2 of 2

Shaikh Shakeel Shaikh Budhen v. Mohd Rauf Mohd Zahur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Shakeel Shaikh Budhen v. Mohd Rauf Mohd Zahur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dasrao Uttamrao Hambarde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Shaikh Haseeb Abdul Habeeb and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Surayakant Bandappa Kasnale Vs the Competent Authority the Deputy Collector and Others

Poonam Sudamrao Mugal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Poonam Sudamrao Mugal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dipak Jagannath Rahane Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others