Sumit S/O Ravindra Biswas Vs v and M Builders and Developers, Thr. Partner, Dr. Manoj G. Deodekar, Amravati — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sumit S/O Ravindra Biswas Vs v and M Builders and Developers, Thr. Partner, Dr. Manoj G. Deodekar, Amravati — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of without adjudicating the merits of the interim orders; trial court directed to decide the Exhibit 21 application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC after hearing both parties within one month; parties to maintain status quo as regards the interim orders dated 02.09.2025 and 15.09.2025 in the interregnum.

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim orders dated 02.09.2025 and 15.09.2025 passed by the trial court (restraint on use of listed machinery and appointment of a Court Commissioner) during consideration of the plaintiff's application at Exhibit 21 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC should be interfered with in this writ petition.

Court's answer

Since the main application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC at Exhibit 21 is pending before the trial court with the reply filed and not yet taken up for hearing, the controversy in the petition regarding the interim orders dated 02.09.2025 and 15.09.2025 can be decided while deciding the application at Exhibit 21.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of by directing the trial court to decide the application at Exhibit 21 after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties, within a period of one month.

Key takeaways

During the said period, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as regards the orders dated 02.09.2025 and 15.09.2025.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Writ Petition No.6103 of 2025 (decided 17.12.2025, Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.): Petitioner challenged interim orders dated 02.09.2025 (directing the defendant not to use machinery listed on record) and 15.09.2025 (appointing a Court Commissioner) passed by the 13th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati, during consideration of the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC at Exhibit 21 in Special Civil Suit No.259 of 2025, a suit concerning settlement of accounts for construction carried out by the plaintiff on the defendant's site. Observing that the Exhibit 21 application was still pending with the reply filed and not yet heard, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the trial court to decide that application after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties within one month, and directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards both interim orders during that period.

2025:BHC-NAG:14595

1 37. WP 6103 of 2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO.6103 OF 2025

SUMIT S/O RAVINDRA BISWAS VERSUS

V AND M BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, THR. PARTNER, DR. MANOJ G. DEODEKAR, AMRAVATI

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's orders Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. B.H. Sheikh, Advocate for Respondent.

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

DATED : 17^th DECEMBER 2025

PER COURT :-

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as learned Advocate for the respondent.

The petitioner has challenged the interim orders dated 02.09.2025 and 15.09.2025, passed by the Court of 13^th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati, during consideration of the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “CPC”), which is filed at Exhibit 21 in Special Civil Suit No.259 of 2025.

The controversy involved in the suit is with respect to the settlement of accounts about the construction carried out by the plaintiff on the site of defendant. By order dated 02.09.2025, the trial

2 37. WP 6103 of 2025.odt

court has directed the defendant not to use the machinery as mentioned in the list filed on record and by order dated 15.09.2025, the court has appointed a Court Commissioner. Both these orders are subjected to challenge by way of instant petition. By order dated 10.10.2025, while issuing notice in this petition to the respondent, this Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo.

Having regard to the entire controversy involved, it is clear that the main application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, filed by the plaintiff at Exhibit 21, is pending before the trial court, in which reply is also filed and the said application is yet to be taken up for hearing. Thus, the controversy involved in the petition with respect to the orders dated 02.09.2025 and 15.09.2025, can be decided while deciding the application at Exhibit 21.

In view of this, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the trial court to decide the application at Exhibit 21, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, within a period of one month from today.

During this period, parties are directed to maintain status quo as regards the order dated 02.09.2025 and 15.09.2025.

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

asd