Disposed¶28

Mahabaleshwar P. Rao v. Madhukar Hira Bhoir and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jan 2025WP/4292/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; Writ Petition No. 4292 of 2024; Santosh Subhash Kulkarni v. Madhukar Hira Bhoir and ors.; N. J. Jamadar, J.; 24 February 2025; Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; ad-interim injunction extension refused; supervisory jurisdiction; alternative remedy before appeal court; specific performance; Special Civil Suit No. 467 of 2006; Regular Appeal No. 182 of 2016; Exhibit-5 injunction application; third party rights; CIDCO respondents.

What did the court decide?

The learned District Judge seized with Appeal No.182 of 2016 was requested to hear the application for injunction (Exhibit-5) and/or an application for interim relief expeditiously, on its own merits and in accordance with law; the petitioner was left to seek appropriate orders before the appeal court. ¶28

Mahabaleshwar P. Rao vs Madhukar Hira Bhoir and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the challenge to the order dated 21 March 2018 refusing extension of the ad-interim injunction, with the appeal and the injunction application (Exhibit-5) still pending, can be dealt with in exercise of this Court's supervisory jurisdiction.

¶28

Court's answer

Since the appeal (Regular Appeal No.182 of 2016) is pending and the application for injunction (Exhibit-5) has not been finally decided, the proper remedy for the petitioner-appellant is to approach the appeal court; the challenge to the 2018 order cannot be dealt with in supervisory jurisdiction.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

By the sheer passage of time, equities intervene and third party rights are created; such issues cannot be dealt with in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.

¶28

Key takeaways

The learned District Judge seized with Appeal No.182 of 2016 is requested to hear the application for injunction (Exhibit-5) and/or an application for interim relief to be filed by the petitioner expeditiously, on its own merits and in accordance with law.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under supervisory jurisdiction — challenge to order dated 21.03.2018 of the District Judge, Raigad at Alibag rejecting extension of ad-interim injunction granted on 19.10.2016 in Regular Appeal No.182 of 2016 (arising from dismissal of Special Civil Suit No.467 of 2006 for specific performance) — petitioner non-appearance on 20.03.2018 led to non-extension — held, with the appeal pending and the injunction application (Exhibit-5) undecided, and with passage of time, equities and third party rights intervening, such issues cannot be dealt with in supervisory jurisdiction; proper remedy is before the appeal court — District Judge requested to hear the injunction/interim relief application expeditiously on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶1

53-WP4292-2024.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 4292 OF 2024

¶6

SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI

¶7

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2025.02.27 17:35:30 +0530

¶8

Dr. Mahabaleshwar P. Rao

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

Madhukar Hira Bhoir and ors. …Respondents

¶12

Mr. Vishwanath Patil, a/w Nidhi Chauhan, for the Petitioner. Mr. Dhananjay Athavale, for the Respondent Nos.11 to 13 CIDCO.

¶13

Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for Respondent Nos.10 – State.

¶14

Mr. S. S. Patvardhan, i/b Mrinal Shelar, for Respondent No.14.

¶15

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 24^th FEBRUARY, 2025

¶16

Order:-

¶17

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

This petition assails an order dated 21^st March, 2018

¶19

passed by the learned District Judge, Raigad at Alibag, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for extension of ad-interim injunction order dated 19^th October, 2016, came to be rejected.

¶20

The petitioner had instituted Special Civil Suit No.467

¶21

of 2006 for specific performance of contract. By an order dated 4^th July, 2016 the said suit came to be dismissed.

¶22

1/3

¶23

53-WP4292-2024.DOC

¶24

Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Regular Appeal No.182 of 2016. In the said appeal, an application for injunction (Exhibit-5) was filed. On 19^th October, 2016, the learned Principal District Judge, Raigad at Alibag was persuaded to grant an ad-interim relief in the nature of restraining the respondents from selling, alienating or otherwise creating third party interest in the suit property. It seems that the petitioner did not appear on 20^th March, 2018, the ad-interim injunction was not extended. The petitioner filed an application seeking extension of the said order. On 21^st March, 2018, by the impugned order the said application came to be rejected.

¶25

Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the Advocate for the petitioner did not inform the petitioner about the said order, steps could not be taken to seek restoration of ad-interim order. It was recently realized that taking advantage of the said vacation of the adinterim order, third party rights have been created and construction has been erected over the suit property. It was submitted that a reasoned order, which was passed on 19^th October, 2016 could not have been vacated for nonappearance of the petitioner.

¶26

2/3

¶27

53-WP4292-2024.DOC

¶28

Evidently, the appeal preferred by the petitioner i.e. Regular Civil Appeal No.182 of 2016 is pending before the District Judge, nay even the application for injunction (Exhibit-5) has not been finally decided. The challenge in this petition is to an order passed in the year 2018 of refusing to extend the ad-interim order dated 19^th October, 2016. By the sheer passage of time, equities intervene and third party rights are created. All these issues cannot be dealt with in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Since the appeal is pending and even the application for injunction (Exhibit-5) does not seem to have been decided, the proper remedy for the petitioner – appellant is to approach the Appeal court and seek appropriate orders.

¶29

As an apprehension is expressed on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner’s rights would be seriously jeopardized if the interim reliefs are not granted, the learned District Judge seized with Appeal No.182 of 2016, is requested to hear the application for injunction (Exhibit-5) and/or an application for interim relief which be filed on behalf the petitioner as expeditiously as possible on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶30

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶31

3/3

Mahabaleshwar P. Rao v. Madhukar Hira Bhoir and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahabaleshwar P. Rao v. Madhukar Hira Bhoir and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

H Rishbraj Realty Thr Its Partner and Anr. vs George Mendes and Anr.

Dr. Rustum Sam Boyce vs M/S Astrix Reality Thr. Its Partner and Anr.

Icici Bank Ltd. vs Rajiv Manohar Gurjar

Dinkar Kallappa Kamble(Since Decd. Thr. Lrs) Shri. Pravin Dinkar Kamble and Ors. vs Sou.Pushpa Shankar Satpude

Ankush Tukaram Pol vs Shivaji Tukaram Pol and Anr.

Birahadsiddha Devasthan Thr Trustee vs Joint Charity Commissioner Kolhapur and Ors.