961.4615.2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4615 OF 2024 1] Fakiraba S/o. Trimbak Sonawne (Died through L.R.s) 1/a] Tulshiram S/o. Fakirba Sonawne, Age : 77 years, Occ. : Agriculture, R/o. Lasurgaon, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. 1/b] Babbai W/o. Gorakh Janrao, Age : 60 years, Occ. : Agriculture & Household 1/c] Kashbai W/o. Valmik Gaikwad, Age : 59 years, Occ. : Agriculture & Household R/o. Jategoan, Tq. Nandgaon, Dist. Nashik. 1/d] Latabai Tulshiram Sonawne, Age : 50 years, Occ. : Agriculture & Household, R/o. Lasurgaon, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. 2] Chandrabhan S/o. Tulshiram Sonwane, Age : 35 years, Occ. : Agriculture R/o. Lasurgoan, Tq. Vaijapur Dist. Aurangabad 3] Suresh S/o. Tushiram Sonwane Age : 33 years, Occ. : Agriculture, R/o. As above … PETITIONERS (Org. Respondents/Defts.) VERSUS Mallu S/o. Fakirba Sonawne, Age : 55 years, Occ. : Agriculture, R/o. Lasurgaon, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. … RESPONDENT (Org. Applicant/Plaintiff) komal kamble Page 1 2025:BHC-AUG:21285 961.4615.2024 ________________________________________________________________ • Mr. S. C. Arora, Advocate for Petitioners • Mr. V. H. Pathade, Advocate for Respondent sole ________________________________________________________________ CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : AUGUST 06, 2025 O R A L J U D G M E N T : 1. The sole respondent has filed a suit for partition and separate possession being Regular Civil Suit No. 541 of 2013. The said suit was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 19.07.2017. The respondent filed an application for restoration of the suit and since there was a delay in filing the restoration application a separate application for condonation of delay was filed. These applications were filed on 14.09.2018. The suit is ordered to be restored to file vide impugned order dated 13.03.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the learned Trial Court has not passed any order on the application for condonation of delay and without condoning the delay, the suit is restored by a non- speaking order. 3. As regards merits, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct, and the order is certainly unsustainable. However, having regard to the fact that the suit is a suit for partition, and dismissal of the suit in default will not bar a fresh suit for the same relief, in my komal kamble Page 2 961.4615.2024 considered opinion, it will not be appropriate to exercise writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners in the peculiar facts of the case. It must also be mentioned that the Trial Court has taken a sympathetic view in the matter. The ends of justice will be subserved by directing the learned Trial Court to expedite the suit, since the suit is pending since 2013. The petition is rejected. However, the learned counsel Trial Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously, and in any case, on or before 30.04.2026. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent - plaintiff shall not seek unnecessary adjournments before the learned Trial Court and shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the suit. [ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.] komal kamble Page 3