This Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction over an interlocutory order in a pending suit, holding that the relief should be sought in the appellate forum.
The writ petition was disposed of as the exercise of writ jurisdiction was not warranted.
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.
WP-9955.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9955 OF 2015
Kashinath Motiram Patil and anr. : Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra (Through the Collector, Thane) and ors. : Respondents.
Mr. K K Malpathak for the Petitioners.
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 15th October 2015
P.C.
1 The order dated 22/04/2015 exhibiting the tax assessment register produced by the Defendant No.4 and directing to be read in evidence is taken exception to by way of the above Writ Petition.
2 The impugned order being in the nature of an interlocutory order passed in the suit, the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court is not warranted. It would always be open for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs to raise the issue raised in the above Petition in the Appeal that would be required to be filed if the decree ultimately goes against the Petitioners/Plaintiffs. With the aforesaid observations, the above Writ Petition is disposed of.
[R.M.SAVANT, J]
1 of 1
lgc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction regarding an interlocutory order passed in a pending suit.
Whether the petitioners should approach the appellate forum instead of filing a writ petition.
Kashinath Motiram Patil and anr.
State of Maharashtra (Through the Collector, Thane) and ors.
R. M. Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
