10-WP-8898-2016 (C).DOCX Pallavi IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8898 OF 2016 Mrs. Rani Jaywant Desai ...Petitioner Versus Ms. Sarika Mahadev Pawar ...Respondent ______________________________________________________ None for Petitioner. None for Respondent. ______________________________________________________ CORAM : Advait M. Sethna, J. DATED : 24 December 2025 P.C.:- 1. This Court has passed the following order on 22 December 2025:- “1. None appear for the Petitioner. 2. This Court has passed several orders in the present proceedings. It is pertinent to note that by an order dated 11 April 2019, this Court recorded that the Petitioner had neither supplied copies nor paid the requisite process fees to effect service upon the Respondent. This was despite the Petitioner having secured restoration of the execution proceedings. The Court was of the view that such conduct was improper, however, as a matter of indulgence, the Petitioner was directed to pay costs of 5,000/- ₹ within ten days to the Registry, whereupon the Registry was directed to accept the process fees and take steps to serve the Respondent. 3. Sufficient indulgence has already been shown by this Court. The conduct of the Petitioner demonstrates a PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Digitally signed by PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date: 2025.12.24 19:38:39 +0530 10-WP-8898-2016 (C).DOCX lack of interest in prosecuting the present proceedings. However, as a matter of last opportunity, the matter is Stand over to 24 December 2025. 4. It is made clear that if the same position continues, this Court shall be constrained to pass appropriate orders, including dismissal of the petition for want of prosecution.” [ 2. Despite such order and the Petitioner being directed to pay cost by order dated 11 April 2019, the Petitioner has once again not appeared today when the matter is listed. This shows that the Petitioner is not taking the Court orders seriously. It appears that the Petitioner has completely lost interest in pursuing these Petitions. 3. In light of the above orders, the Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. (Advait M. Sethna, J)