Dismissed¶18

Shakuntala Govind Meshram v. Sandesh Dharmaji Gaikwad and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Jul 2025WP/6832/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Shakuntala Govind Meshram v. Sandesh Dharmaji Gaikwad & Ors., WP No. 6832 of 2025, Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Gauri Godse, J., decided 15-07-2025. Plaintiff's Art. 227 petition against rejection of application (Exhibit-68) to appoint a Court Commissioner dismissed as order is purely interlocutory; objections to existing reports (Exhibits-55, 67) and cross-examination of Commissioner left open; S. 105 CPC appeal route flagged. Keywords: Court Commissioner, Exhibit-68, interlocutory order, Article 227, Section 105 CPC, writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; liberty under Section 105 of CPC reserved and the rights and contentions of the parties in the suit kept open. ¶18

Shakuntala Govind Meshram vs Sandesh Dharmaji… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; liberty under Section 105 of CPC reserved and the rights and contentions of the parties in the suit kept open.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should interfere with the interlocutory order rejecting the petitioner-plaintiff's application at Exhibit-68 for appointment of a Court Commissioner.

¶11

Court's answer

The impugned order is purely an interlocutory order which in no manner affects the rights of the parties, and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner can always file objections to the Commissioner's reports already on record, which the trial court is bound to consider, and can also seek permission to cross-examine the Court Commissioner at an appropriate stage.

¶16

Key takeaways

Normally, the court should be very slow in interfering with such an interlocutory order in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶17
In view of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the impugned order can always be challenged in an appeal against the decree which may be passed in the suit, in the event the decree is adverse to the petitioner.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Art. 227, Bombay HC, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) by the plaintiff challenging the trial court's interlocutory order rejecting her application at Exhibit-68 for appointment of a Court Commissioner, on the ground that the Commissioner's report (Exhibit-55) and revised report (Exhibit-67) with maps were already on record. Held: the order is purely interlocutory, affects no rights and causes no prejudice; the petitioner may object to the existing reports (which the trial court must consider) and may seek cross-examination of the Commissioner at an appropriate stage; courts should be very slow to interfere with such interlocutory orders under Art. 227; and per S. 105 CPC the order can be challenged in appeal against the decree if adverse. Petition dismissed, liberty under S. 105 CPC reserved and parties' rights and contentions kept open. (Gauri Godse, J.; 15 July 2025.)

Shakuntala Govind Meshram v. Sandesh Dharmaji Gaikwad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntala Govind Meshram v. Sandesh Dharmaji Gaikwad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Marvel Sigma Homes Private Limited through Its Director Mr Vishwajeet Subhash Jhavar vs Mr. Arunkumar Bajranglal Chamadia

Marvel Sigma Homes Private Limited through Its Director Mr Vishwajeet Subhash Jhavar vs Mr. Laxmikant Omprakash Chamadia

Marvel Sigma Homes Private Limited through Its Director Mr Vishwajeet Subhash Jhavar vs Mr Pavankumar Bajranglal Chamadia

Gunvor Singapore Pte Ltd. vs Ushdev International Ltd.

Reliance Industries Limited vs Rivpe Technology Private Limited

Reliance Industries Limited vs Rivpe Technology Private Limited