Dismissed¶¶28

Chhaya Prakash Bhagwat v. Sachin Bhalchandra Bhumkar and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jul 2025WP/3428/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhaya Prakash Bhagwat v. Sachin Bhalchandra Bhumkar & Ors., Writ Petition No. 3428 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), decided 23 July 2025 by Gauri Godse J. Keywords: Article 227; discretionary jurisdiction; mandatory injunction; counter claim; temporary shed; implemented order; confirmation in appeal; maintainability of counter claim; defendant nos. 2-5 impleaded; liberty to object; merits kept open; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Since the impugned order of mandatory injunction has already been implemented, the Court sees no reason to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. ¶¶24

Chhaya Prakash Bhagwat vs Sachin Bhalchandra Bhumkar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

9-WP-3428-2024.docx

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3428 OF 2024

¶5

Chhaya Prakash Bhagwat … Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Sachin Bhalchandra Bhumkar … Respondents

¶8

and Others

¶9

Mr. Rameshwar Gite for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Suyash Sule a/w. Mr. Rugwed Kinkar and Mr. Drupad Patil for the Respondent No.1.

¶11

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶12

DATE : 23^rd JULY 2025

¶13

ORDER :

¶14

This petition is filed by defendant no. 5 in the counter claim to challenge an order of mandatory injunction passed in the counter claim. By the impugned order passed in the counter claim the present petitioner was directed to remove a temporary shed.

¶15

Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 i.e. defendant

¶16

no. 1 who has filed the counter claim submits that the order is already implemented and the temporary shed is removed.

¶17

He therefore submits that nothing survives in this petition.

¶18

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARIRAMESH RAJESHWARIRAMESHPILLAI PILLAI Date: 2025.07.25 02:53:11 +0200

¶19

1/3

¶20

9-WP-3428-2024.docx

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that

¶22

the order is implemented. He however submits that the counter claim itself is not maintainable; hence, the impugned order of mandatory injunction would also not be sustainable. He points out that the suit is filed only against one defendant, however in the counter claim filed by defendant no. 1, he has added defendant no. 2 to 5 as party defendants. He submits that in this counter claim which is not maintainable the court passed order of mandatory injunction. He submitted that even if the order is implemented, this court can interfere with the impugned order to set aside the impugned order which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is an illegal order.

¶23

4. Since the order is already implemented, I do not see

¶24

any reason to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order of mandatory injunction is confirmed by the appeal court.

¶25

Since the suit and counter claim are still pending, it would always be open to the petitioner to raise necessary objections including maintainability of the counter claim by

¶26

2/3

¶27

9-WP-3428-2024.docx

¶28

taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Subject to aforesaid observations and keeping liberty open the petitioner to raise the objection of maintainability of the counter claim, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶29

It is further clarified that rival contentions of the parties

¶30

on merits in the suit and the counter claim are kept open.

¶31

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

¶32

3/3

Chhaya Prakash Bhagwat v. Sachin Bhalchandra Bhumkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhaya Prakash Bhagwat v. Sachin Bhalchandra Bhumkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dhanlaxmi Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. vs Sanjay Chandrakant Chavan and Anr.

Vijaykumar Bankelal Agrawal vs Shri Savata Maharaj Mandir Trust Phaltan and Anr.

Ashok Namdev Sutar and Ors. vs Nandkumar Raghunath Sutar and Ors.

Transcon Developers Private Limited vs Anchor Point Developer Private Limited

Macrotech Developers Limited vs Nalini Rajagopalan

Shree Siddhivinayak Classic Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Rahul Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd. through Its General Manager Shri Dashrat S. Matal