The High Court of Judicature at Bombay held that an interlocutory order is challengeable under section 105(1) of the Civil Procedure Code rather than Article 227 of the Constitution. Consequently, the writ petition under Article 227 was dismissed without interference.
The writ petition was dismissed. No costs awarded to the petitioner.
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.
60-wp10095-2022.doc
VRJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10095 OF 2022
VAIBHAV RAMESH
JADHAV
Digitally signed byVAIBHAV RAMESHJADHAV Date: 2023.11.0718:04:31 +0530
Laxmi Appasaheb Savade … Petitioner V/s. Suraj Subhash Lakde & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam for the petitioner.
Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure with Ms. Bhavika Shinde for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : NOVEMBER 7, 2023
P.C.:
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an interlocutory order is capable of being challenged under section 105(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 instead of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be granted interference in the face of an alternative remedy under the Civil Procedure Code.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Laxmi Appasaheb Savade
Suraj Subhash Lakde
AMIT BORKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
