Dismissed

Sakharam Madhavrao Bendbhar and Ors. v. Janabai Moreshwar Mungase (Decd.)by Lrs. - Saraswati Popatrao Mungase and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Mar 2009WP/2182/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a discretionary interlocutory order of the lower court. The court relied on the principle that such errors can be corrected in appeal or revision, keeping all questions open for the appeal stage.

What did the court decide?

All questions raised in the petition have been kept open to be agitated in the appeal or revision.

Sakharam Madhavrao Bendbhar and Ors. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.2182 OF 2009

¶4

 Shri Sakharam Madhavrao Bendbhar
 & Ors. ...Petitioners

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 Sau.Janabai Moreshwar Mungase,
 Deceased through her heirs and
 legal representatives:
 1.Smt.Saraswati Popatrao Mungase
 & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

 Mr.M.B.Kale for Petitioners.

¶8

 None for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

¶10

 MARCH 26, 2009.
 P.C.

¶11

 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioners.

¶12

 2. The order impugned in this Petition is a
 discretionary order passed by the Court below at
 the interlocutory stage. Assuming that there is
 some error of jurisdiction committed by the lower
 Court in the impugned order, however, indubitably

¶13

 : 2 :

¶14

 the same is capable of being corrected at a later
 stage. As observed by the Apex Court in the case

¶15

 of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors.
reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675, in particular, in
 Paragraph 39, that the wrong done, if any, could be
 set right and the rights and equities can be
 adjusted in appeal or revision preferred at the
 conclusion of the proceedings, no interference in
 exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Hence,
 dismissed.

¶16

 3. Needless to observe that all questions
 raised in the present Petition are kept open to be
 agitated by the Petitioners in the appeal or
 revision to be preferred against the final decision
 at the conclusion of the proceedings which will
 have to be considered on its own merits in

¶17

 accordance with law.

¶18

 A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Sakharam Madhavrao Bendbhar and Ors. v. Janabai Moreshwar Mungase (Decd.)by Lrs. - Saraswati Popatrao Mungase and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakharam Madhavrao Bendbhar and Ors. v. Janabai Moreshwar Mungase (Decd.)by Lrs. - Saraswati Popatrao Mungase and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandralekha Vimal Shukla Vs Pravinkumar L. Jain and Anr.

Ramchandra Kisan Kokare Vs Machindra Vithoba Kokare and Ors.

Narendra Narain Vaishya Vs Induben Ramniklal Parekh and Anr.

Rupal Mayur Doshi Vs Mayur Jaswantray Doshi

Shrimant Ganpati Gulve (Decd.)by Lrs.- Rukminibai Shrimant Gulve and Ors., Vs Tanabai Gyandev Gulve (Decd.)- Mohan Gyandev Gulve and Ors.

Prakash Tukaram Walvekar Vs M/S. Walpat Industries and Ors.