← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/3037/1995dismissedrule discharged

Sattuji Parasram Tikkale. v. Subhan Krishnaji Gadhakh And Others.

2016-06-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice P.R. Bora3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3037 OF 1995 SATTUJI PARASRAM TIKKALE

VERSUS

SUBHAN KRISHNAJI GADHAKH AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3038 OF 1995 MUNNA SUDAM KAMBLE

VERSUS

BHAUSAHEB CHANDRABHAN MORE AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3039 OF 1995 MORE GIRARAM RAJARAM

VERSUS

VILAS VISHWANATH PAWAR AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3040 OF 1995 BHIMRAJ KACHRU PUND

VERSUS

RAMKISHAN SHANKAR BHAGWAT AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3041 OF 1995 BHASKAR NARAYAN UNDE

VERSUS

GAJANAN KESU YEWALE AND OTHERS

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3042 OF 1995 GAIKWAD SHARAD MANDAJI

VERSUS

SHAIKH ISAQ GULAB AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3043 OF 1995 MAHANKAL APPASAHEB SAYAJI

VERSUS

SHAIKH SUBHEDAR BANSI AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3057 OF 1995 NIVRUTTI MARUTI KHANDE

VERSUS

DATTATRYA NAMDEO KADAM AND OTHERS AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3058 OF 1995 KUNDLIK SHANKAR MUSMADE

VERSUS

PARASRAM MANOHAR GAVANDE AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. A. B. Gatane.

Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. T. N. Tandale, h/f Mr. A. B. Kale. ...

CORAM :

P. R. BORA, J.

DATE :

28th June, 2016.

ORDER:

.

When the present petitions are taken up for hearing, Shri Gatne, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are not

in contact with him since last several years. The learned counsel further submits that lastly the Petitioners had contacted him in the year 1998 and it was informed by the Petitioners that the dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondents has been amicably settled and that they will bring to him the terms of settlement so as to place the said terms before the Court and get the present matters disposed of. The learned counsel submitted that after 1998 none of the Petitioners have turned up till this date.

It appears that the Petitioners have lost interest in prosecuting the petitions. Possibly the matter might have been amicably settled. In such circumstances, the writ petitions stand dismissed for want of prosecution. Rule discharged.

[ P. R. BORA, J. ] ndm