1 958-wp-12616-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12616 OF 2024 Nana Bhagwan Bangar And Others VERSUS Machindra Apparao Andhare ... Mr. V. M. Humbe, Advocate for Respondent ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATED : 18TH AUGUST, 2026 P.C. :- . Feeling aggrieved by the order rejecting appointment of Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiffs have lodged this Writ Petition in the year 2024. 2. On 21.11.2024, when the matter was circulated, nobody appears for the petitioners. This Court observed that “pendency of this petition shall not be treated as stay to any order to any connected proceeding”. Thereafter, on 21.01.2025, notices were issued and the respondent caused appearance through learned Advocate Mr. V. M. Humbe. When the matter was taken on board dated 17.08.2026, this Court observed thus: 2026:BHC-AUG:37419 2 958-wp-12616-2024 This matter was called in the first session of the day when nobody appeared for the petitioner. Mr.Humbe, learned counsel for the respondent was present. Considering that the suit of 2014 filed by the petitioner in the Civil Court is still pending, the matter was kept back in the second session of the day. In the second session, nobody appeared for the petitioner. However, Mr.Humbe, learned counsel is present for the respondent. 2. In a suit filed for a decree of perpetual injunction, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking appointment of Commissioner for the purpose of local inspection and filing report before the Civil Court. After hearing the parties and observing that in the facts and circumstances, grant of prayer would amount to permit collection of evidence, the Civil Court denied to grant the relief. As against this, this petition was filed on 25.10.2024. 3. On 21.11.2024 this court issued notice observing that pendency of this petition shall not be treated as stay to any order to any connected proceedings. Again on the next date, i.e. 16.12.2024, nobody appeared for the petitioner when the matter was called out. The matter was adjourned. Again observing that pendency of petition not to be treated as stay to any order or proceedings. Thereafter, the matter came up before the court on 21.01.2025. This court recorded submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner at paragraph 3 which reads thus:- “ He further submits that the proceedings before the Trial Court are stayed. It is his contention that no prejudice will cause to the defendant if proceedings are stayed. 4. Relying upon such statement, this court issued notice to the respondents, making it returnable on 24.03.2025. At clause no.5, the trial court was directed not to proceed with the 3 958-wp-12616-2024 trial till next date of hearing. Thereafter, it was observed that the petitioner failed to take steps to serve the respondents. He did not deposit the copies for issuance of notice to the respondents. Hence, on 20.03.2025, this court directed that if the copies are not supplied within time by the petitioner, the petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the court. Thereafter, it appears that notice was issued and Mr.Humbe, learned counsel caused appearance for the respondents. On 02.05.2025, interim relief was directed to continue till next date. Thereafter, the matter could reach on board on 16.09.2025 when nobody appeared for the petitioner and the matter was adjourned to 15.10.2025 for dismissal. There was no continuation of interim relief. Again, on the next date, the matter seemed to be listed on board but could not be taken due to paucity of time. 5. I have gone through to the petition. Apparently, prior to the order dated 21.01.2025, there was no stay granted by this court. On the other hand, vide order dated 16.12.2024, this court expressly mentioned that pendnecy of petition shall not be treated as stay or any interim relief. In the light of the above, I find that incorrect statement was made before this court that the suit was stayed. Based on such false statement, some interim protection is obtained by the petitioner. 6. Stand over to 18.08.2026. 3. Today, the matter was specifically kept at 02:30 p.m. However, when called out, nobody appears for the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners have lost their interest in prosecuting the Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. 4 958-wp-12616-2024 4. As observed in the earlier orders, this Court has never granted stay to the suit proceedings; however, wrong statement was made on behalf of the petitioners that relief was already granted. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. V. M. Humbe, for respondent seeks direction from this Court to the Trial Court to decide the suit within a period of eight months from today. 6. Learned Judge of the Trial Court is requested to conclude the suit proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of 10 (Ten) months from today. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) Rushikesh/2026