This Court declined to interfere with a purely interlocutory and procedural order, holding that it is capable of challenge only in a final order in main proceedings, and disposed of the Writ Petition under Article 227.
The Impugned Order remains unaltered; the Writ Petition is disposed of.
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.
GAG
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
Writ Petition No.6394 Of 2012.
Shivaji Dhanaji Salunkhe & Ors.
:: Petitioners.
Versus
Arjun Shripati Salunkhe & Ors.
:: Respondents.
Mr. Shrikant Yadav, Advocate for the Petitioners.
None appeared for the Respondents.
CORAM :: RANJIT MORE, J. DATED :: 12th December, 2012.
P.C. :-
Heard.
2. The order impugned in the aforesaid Writ Petition is purely interlocutory and procedural order, capable of challenge in an appeal from final order in main proceedings, if the same is adverse to the petitioners. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with an interlocutory procedural order under Article 226.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shivaji Dhanaji Salunkhe & Ors.
Arjun Shripati Salunkhe & Ors.
RANJIT MORE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
