Raghvendra Construction Company Private Limited v. Zubeda Begum Mohammad Siddique Ansari, Chief Promoter of Sahayog Sra Chs

Bombay HC1 Dec 2025IA/4114/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court interim application under Section 151 CPC for dismissal of suit; cause of action premised on existing road line breached by defendants; road line obliterated in Writ Petition for same cause of action; fresh road line demarcated by parties; no cause of action if original line obliterated and new line differs; Raghvendra Construction Company Private Limited applicant/Defendant No.1; Zubeda Begum Mohammad Siddique Ansari plaintiffs; affidavit-in-reply or statement across the bar permitted; application adjourned one week to 9 December 2025; Milind N. Jadhav, J.; Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction.

What the court decided

Raghvendra Construction Company Private Limited vs Zubeda Begum Mohammad Siddique Ansari, Chief Promoter of Sahayog Sra Chs — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Outcome

Disposed

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether any cause of action subsists for the Suit — which is premised on an existing ('exsistential') road line allegedly breached by the Defendants — given that in a Writ Petition decided for the same cause of action the road line has been obliterated while a fresh road line has since been demarcated, and how this bears on Defendant No.1's application under Section 151 CPC for dismissal of the Suit.

¶¶24

Court's answer

The Court observed (hypothetically, facts being unresolved) that if the original road line is obliterated and the newly demarcated road line is different from the original one, there can be no cause of action for filing the present Suit proceedings; final determination deferred pending instructions from Plaintiffs' counsel.

¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (Milind N. Jadhav, J.) — Interim Application No. 4114 of 2025 in Suit No. 20 of 2025, Zubeda Begum Mohammad Siddique Ansari & Anr. v. Raghvendra Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., order dated 01.12.2025: Defendant No.1 (Raghvendra Construction Company Private Limited, also the Applicant) invoked the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking dismissal of the Suit. Counsel for the Plaintiffs fairly disclosed that the Suit rests on an alleged breach of an existing road line, but that in a Writ Petition decided for the same cause of action the said road line stands obliterated; however, pursuant thereto the parties took steps and a fresh road line has been demarcated. The Court observed that if the original road line is obliterated and the newly demarcated line differs from it, no cause of action subsists for the Suit. Counsel for the Plaintiffs was permitted to take instructions and file an Affidavit-in-Reply or make a statement across the bar; the Interim Application was adjourned by one week and stood over to 09.12.2025. No precedent was cited and no final ruling was made on the merits.

¶1

26.IA.4114.2025.doc

¶2

HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4114 OF 2025

¶6

¶7

SUIT NO.20 OF 2025

¶8

Raghvendra Construction Company Private Limited .. Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: Zubeda Begum Mohammad Siddique Ansari and Anr. .. Plaintiffs

¶9

Versus

¶10

Raghvendra Construction Company Private Limited and Ors. Defendants

¶11

Mr. Gaurav Mehta a/w. Mr. Aditya Miskita, Ms. Shamima Taly, Mr. Aziz Mohd, and Ms. Sehyr Taly, Advocates i/by S. Mohamedbhai & Co. for Plaintiffs.

¶12

Mr. Rahul Pandey a/w. Mr. Ismail Shaik, Advocates for Defendant No.1.

¶13

Mr. Rashmin Khandekar a/w. Mr. Aditya Lele, Advocates for Defendant No.2.

¶14

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : DECEMBER 01, 2025

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1. Heard learned Advocates for respective parties.

¶17

2. Mr. Mehta, Mr. Pandey and Mr. Khandekar learned Advocates have made their preliminary submissions.

¶18

3. Interim Application is filed by Defendant No.1 invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for dismissal of the Suit.

¶19

4. Mr. Mehta in his usual fairness informs the Court that Suit is

¶20

1 of 2

¶21

26.IA.4114.2025.doc

¶22

based on the premise that there was an exsistential road line which has been breached by Defendants. He would fairly inform the Court that it has been brought to his notice that in a Writ Petition decided for the same cause of action the said road line has been obliterated.

¶23

5. However he would also submit on instructions that pursuant thereto steps were taken by the parties and a fresh road line has now been demarcated. He informs the Court that he needs to take appropriate instructions on this aspect so as to ascertain the correct facts and only thereafter place them before the Court accordingly.

¶24

6. If at all the original road line is obliterated and the newly demarcated road line is different other than the original one, then there can be no cause of action for filing the present Suit proceedings.

¶25

7. At request of Mr. Mehta for taking appropriate instructions and filing Affidavit-in-Reply or making statement across the bar, Interim Application in the suit stands adjourned by a period of one week from today.

¶26

8. Stand over to 09^th December, 2025 .

¶27

H. H. SAWANT

¶28

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶29

Digitally signed HARSHADAHANUMANT by HARSHADAHANUMANTSAWANT SAWANT Date: 2025.12.02 17:20:16 +0530

¶30

2 of 2

Raghvendra Construction Company Private Limited v. Zubeda Begum Mohammad Siddique Ansari, Chief Promoter of Sahayog Sra Chs

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Raghvendra Construction Company Private Limited v. Zubeda Begum Mohammad Siddique Ansari, Chief Promoter of Sahayog Sra Chs

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suresh Harichandra Kadam and Anr. vs Sunanda Sakaram Kadam (Deceased)

Meetaba Ramnarayan Singh vs Dev Narayan Shitlaprasad Singh

Shakuntala Ramesh Dave vs Poonam Vimal Dave

Sushil Prakash Wagh vs Baban Shripati Wagh Since Dec Thr Legal Heirs and Ors.

Priya Prabhakar Rane vs State of Maharashtra Thru. Gp and Ors.

Mr John Felshia D Souza Decd Thr Lhrs vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.