Principal Kohinoor Arts Commerce And Science College Khultabad v. Dr Pradnya

2025:BHC-AUG:21844 (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 13 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11823 OF 2024 IN RAST/29171/2024 PRINCIPAL KOHINOOR ARTS COMMERCE AND SCIENCE COLLEGE KHULTABAD ....Applicant

VERSUS

DR PRADNYA .....Respondent WITH CONT. PETITION NO. 687 OF 2024 IN WP/8624/2018 WITH CONT. PETITION NO. 814 OF 2024 Mr. Harshal P. Randhir, Advocate h/f Mrs. Medha A. Jondhale, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Mr. Nachiket S. Raole, Advocate h/f Mr. Sushant V. Dixit, Advocate for the respondent No.3 CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.

DATE : 07th AUGUST, 2025 P. C.

1.

Today when the matter is called out the learned advocate for the applicant sought time stating that he has not received papers of the review application from earlier advocate.

(2) 2.

Mr. Deshmukh, learned advocate for the respondent points out order dated 07-02-2025 passed by this court. It is observed in the order that the application was filed by one Lawyer. Thereafter, Lawyer was changed and Mr. Muthiyan, learned Advocate appeared. This court also expressed that review is not filed by same advocate who appeared in the writ petition. It is further observed that in fact filing of SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and dismissal of the same is suppressed. Thereafter, the learned Advocate Mr. Muthiyan filed an application seeking amendment to the civil application for condonation of delay. Same is pending.

3.

Today, the learned advocate for the applicant requests for some time who is third Advocate appointed by the applicant by taking no objection from another advocate. 4.

This court finds that firstly; review application is not by an advocate who appeared in the writ petition. Thereafter

(3) twice advocate is changed. Secondly; there are no convincing reasons to condone the delay. It is clear that though the order is passed long back on 01-12-2023 it is appearing that no compliance of the said order is done in spite of dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. From the conduct, it is clear that the applicant is only killing time. This court finds that after filing the application no efforts are taken to work out the matter. Thus, this court finds that the application seeking condonation of delay and other pending applications/petitions, if any deserve to be dismissed for want of prosecution and same are hereby dismissed.

[KISHORE C. SANT, J.] VishalK/13ca11823.24