Sangli Miraj Kupwad Municipal Corpn. v. Sou K.J. Mali

205.WP.5527.99.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5527 OF 1999 Sangli Miraj Kupwad Corporation Petitioner (Orig. Respondent)

Versus

Kamal Jamburao Mali ..

Respondent (Orig. Appellant) ....................

 None for parties.

..

...................

CORAM :MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE :JANUARY 25, 2024 P.C.

:

1.

None for the parties.

2.

On 18.01.2024, this Writ Petition was on Board and none appeared for the parties.

3.

After perusing the Writ Petition, the following order was passed on that date:- "1. None present for the parties.

2. This Writ Petition is filed by Sangli Miraj Kupwad Corporation seeking to maintain a challenge to the order dated 26.07.1999 passed by District Judge, Sangli below Exhibit-34 in Regular Civil Appeal No.450 of 1992 seeking confirmation of the compensation paid by Corporation to Respondent on 26.11.1990.

3. There is an ad-interim order passed on 24.11.1990 which records that Petitioner has deposited the entire amount as per order dated 20.10.1999 and the Respondent who is a private Respondent was permitted to withdraw half of the amount deposited without security and the remaining half of the amount on furnishing bank guarantee of any nationalised bank.

4. The noting effected by Registry on 12.01.2024 records that amount of Rs.4,83,555/- was deposited by Petitioner and the same is withdrawn on 06.05.2000 by the private

205.WP.5527.99.doc Respondent. Thereafter there is no further noting and Writ Petition is listed for final hearing. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent are present today.

5. To give one more opportunity to the parties to remain present this Writ Petition is listed for final hearing on 25th January, 2024. It is clarified that if Petitioner does not remain present, this Writ Petition shall stand dismissed for non prosecution."

4.

Today, when the matter is called out for final hearing, once again there is no representation on behalf of the parties. 5.

In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

6.

Liberty to apply.

7.

Writ Petition is disposed.

Ajay [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date:

2024.01.25 19:13:04 +0530 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE