1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5532 OF 2008 Phulabai wd/o Datta Pawar & Ors. ....Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents. Shri. S.G. Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioners. Shri. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri. V.S. Tanawade, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4-A, 4-C & 4-D. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 26th July, 2010. PER COURT : 1. On 21.11.2008 this Court passed an order, as under :- "1. The parties concerned shall take appropriate steps in these matters within two weeks from today. 2. Ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier, shall continue till next date." In view of aforesaid order, the proceedings of Misc. Application No. 7/2001 were stayed. On 25th of February 2010 this Court passed an order, as under :- "Heard counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that copy of the Darkhast is required to be filed in order to demonstrate as to how the petitioners were not concerned with the execution proceedings initiated by Shahaji Shelke. By way of last chance, S.O. to 8th March, 2010 with intimation that the petition is likely to be heard finally and to be disposed of at peremptory stage." 2 Thereafter again on 8.3.2010, this Court passed an order, as under :- "1. The petitioners were parties to the Execution Proceedings. Still, however, it is difficult to gather whether the surplus land was allotted to deceased Dattu @ Datta Pawar prior to the transaction between D.H. and the owner. The learned advocate for the petitioners undertake to file on record copy of the judgment and the necessary documents in support of the petition. Leave granted. The documents to be filed int he office before 22.3.2010. 2. S.O. to 22.3.2010." 2. In spite of aforesaid orders, the relevant documents are not placed on record. As a result, this Court is unable to proceed with the matter to decide the controversy involved in the case. Hence, the instant writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners makes a request for grant of two weeks time to place on record the relevant documents. However, in spite of granting several opportunities, the documents are not placed on record. Hence, the said request is also rejected. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp5532.08