KVM 1/3 251 TO 260 - WP 3837 OF 2005.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 251 WP/3837/2005 DATTATRAY PRALHAD CHINCHORE AND ORS. VS SHANKARRAO BABURAO JAGTAP AND ORS 252 WP/4145/2005 ARUNKUMAR D. BHANDARI VS SHILA ARUNKUMAR BHANDARI 253 WP/5450/2005 AHMED HUSSAIN SHAIKH VS VIMAL PRAKASH CHUMBALKAR WITH WP/7694/2005 VIMAL PRAKASH CHUMBALKAR VS AHMED HUSSAIN SHAIKH 254 WP/8567/2005 YASMIN ILAVIA VS JEHANGIR IRANI AND ANR. 255 WP/8795/2005 THE BOMBAY DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATION PVT. LTD. VS THE PASTORATE COMMITTEE OF THE SAINT ANDREWS CHURCH AND ORS. 256 WP/6059/2006 VIJAYKUMAR DEVRAJ MEHTA VS SHAHRUKH K.IRANI AND ORS 257 WP/8199/2006 KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Digitally signed by KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Date: 2025.12.15 14:34:19 +0530 KVM 2/3 251 TO 260 - WP 3837 OF 2005.doc MUKTA PRAVIN RANJANKAR VS PRIYANKA PRAMOD KULKARNI AND ORS 258 WP/2667/2007 WITH CAW/1617/2018 IN WP/2667/2007 KUSUM YOGESHCHANDRA SHAH AND ANR. VS RAJNIKANT VALLABHDAS SHAH AND ANR. 259 WP/2885/2007 IQBAL MOHAMMED MOTIWALA VS TAHERBHAI ALIBHAI AND ORS 260 WP/7571/2007 SHIV SHAMBHO MITRA MANDAL AND ANR. VS SHIV SHAMBHO NAGARIK SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT AND ORS. None present. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 12 DECEMBER, 2025 P.C. :- 1) These Writ Petitions are of the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. 2) The Case Information System (CIS) Portal showed these matters as pending. However, the Registry was not able to trace the KVM 3/3 251 TO 260 - WP 3837 OF 2005.doc proceedings. Hence, via Notice dated 29 September, 2025, alongwith list of all the under search matters, was published on the Official Website of the Bombay High Court, requesting the respective advocates to inform the Registry, whether the said matters are pending or disposed and if the said matters are pending, then to provide the photocopy of the Writ Petitions to the Registry. 3) As there was no response, the Registry has placed these matters on the board today before me. 4) None appears for the petitioners when the matters are called out. It is presumed that the Writ Petitions have become infructuous or else the petitioners have lost interest to pursue the matters. Hence, the above Writ Petitions stand dismissed for want of prosecution. [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]