Writ petition under Article 227 dismissed as interlocutory. Court exercised extraordinary jurisdiction to expedite disposal of main civil application without prejudice to merits.
The petition was dismissed with a direction to the learned Judge to dispose of the main civil application expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Writ Petition No.1889 of 2007
1. Shri Shankar Maruti
Surwase and others ..Petitioners
vs.
1. Shri Kalyanrao Shivaji Ingle
and others ..Respondents
Shri S.S.Shah for petitioners.
A.G.P. for respondent no.2.
CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIARI J.
7th December, 2007
P.C.
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is directed against the
order made on Civil Misc.Application No.277 of
2006 and more particularly below Exh.6 therein.
It is undisputed before me that the main civil
misc.application is pending. Exh.6 was filed
claiming stay to the order dated 10th August,
2005 which is impugned in the Civil
Misc.Application. That is the order passed in
Enquiry Case No.11 of 2005 by the Asstt.Charity
Commissioner, Solapur on 10th August, 2005. The
order under challenge has been delivered on 7th
November, 2006. It being an interlocutory order
and both proceedings, namely, the present Civil
Misc.Application so also the appeal against the
Change Report No.1470 of 2006 being pending, it
would not be fair, proper and just to go into
the rival contentions lest any finding even at
the prima facie stage by this Court would
prejudice the case of the parties. The order
under challenge being interlocutory and the
injunction has been refused as early as on 7th
November, 2006, I see no reason to go into any
further details. However, it is clarified that
all observations in the order under challenge
are tentative and prima facie. They shall not
preclude the petitioners from urging appropriate
contentions on merits and in accordance with
law. Further, the Appellate Authority in this
case shall not be influenced by any observations
while deciding the Civil Misc.Application
finally. It shall also not be influenced by the
observation regarding availability of some
remedy for the present petitioners to impugn the
order of 10th August, 2005. Such remedy is not
available is the contention of Shri Shah before
me. Even this aspect is kept open for being
adjudicated during the course of hearing Civil
Misc.Application. With this clarification the
petition is dismissed. The learned Judge to
whom the matter is assigned to endeavour to
dispose of the same as expeditiously as
possible.
(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should go into rival contentions regarding an interlocutory order and the injunction refused therein pending appeal.
Whether the observations in the order under challenge are final or merely tentative.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Shankar Maruti Surwase and others
Shri Kalyanrao Shivaji Ingle and others
S.C. Dharmadhikari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court