Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to a batch of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, challenging land acquisition proceedings. The petitioners were represented by counsel, but on the date of hearing, the advocate for the petitioner in WP 2078/2013 requested that the matter be detagged and stated that an order granting humdust had been passed in one of the matters. The court noted that the petitioners had failed to appear or take steps to prosecute the petitions despite being given opportunities. Consequently, the court dismissed all the writ petitions for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs. The court also directed the office to note the detagging request and act accordingly. The judgment is brief and does not delve into the merits of the land acquisition disputes.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Dismissal for Non-Prosecution - Adjournment Practice - Petitioners failed to appear on multiple dates despite being represented by counsel - Court dismissed petitions for want of prosecution - Held that the court has inherent power to dismiss for default when the petitioner shows no interest in pursuing the matter (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petitions should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioners' failure to appear.
Final Decision
All writ petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. Office to note the detagging request and act accordingly.
Law Points
- Dismissal for non-prosecution
- adjournment practice
- court's discretion to dismiss for default
