Sharad Chokhani HUF vs Ashok Sharma and Others — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2026)

Sharad Chokhani HUF vs Ashok Sharma and Others — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim steps only: notice issued to Respondents (Humdast permitted); Appellant additionally permitted to serve the Appeal From Order, Interim Application and this order on Respondents by any permissible mode and file an Affidavit of service with tangible proof before the next date; Plaintiffs (Respondents) directed to remain present on the next adjourned date; matter stood over to 20th April 2026 under caption 'First on Board', with the Court proposing to pass appropriate directions to dispose of the Appeal From Order and Interim Application.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's ex-parte interim order restraining Defendant No.5 (the Appellant, an auction purchaser in physical possession of the suit flat) from dealing with the suit property is sustainable, where the Defendant had filed a Reply in the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion but was not heard before the order was passed.

Court's answer

An arguable case is made out by the Appellant, especially because the Defendant was never heard and the impugned order is an ex-parte order.

Ratio / Principle

The ex-parte interim order is prima facie not sustainable, since the Defendant ought to have been heard by the Trial Court before such an order was passed.

Key takeaways

In the Judge's opinion the right course of action would be to set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Trial Court to hear the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion in accordance with law, hear both parties and thereafter pass a final order; formal directions were deferred to the next date (20 April 2026).obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Milind N. Jadhav, J., interim observations dated 16 April 2026 in Appeal From Order No. 656 of 2025 with I.A. No. 13602 of 2025 (Sharad Chokhani HUF, orig. Defendant No.5 v. Ashok Sharma and Ors.): the learned Trial Court (City Civil Court) had passed an ex-parte order restraining the Appellant — Defendant No.5, a bona fide purchaser for value in an auction from the Bank (the suit flat having been mortgaged and dealt with under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002) already in physical possession — from dealing with the suit flat. Although the Defendant had filed a Reply in the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion, the matter was heard the previous evening ahead of the adjourned date and the order was passed ex parte without hearing him. Holding the non-hearing decisive, the Court found an arguable case made out and the ex-parte order prima facie not sustainable, issued notice on Respondents (Humdast permitted), permitted service by any permissible mode with affidavit proof, and stood the matter over to 20 April 2026 ('First on Board'), indicating that the right course would be to set aside the impugned order and direct the Trial Court to rehear the Notice of Motion in accordance with law and pass a final order.

12.AO.656.2025.doc

Ajay

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 656 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13602 OF 2025 IN

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 656 OF 2025

Sharad Chokhani HUF Appellant / Orig. .. Defendant No.5 Versus Ashok Sharma and Ors. .. Respondents

Mr. Aadil Parsurampuria a/w. Ms. Apeksha Singh, Advocates for Appellant.

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : APRIL 16, 2026.

P.C.:

Mentioned at the time of rising.

Heard Mr. Parsurampuria, learned Advocate for Appellant.

He has expressed exigency while mentioning the matter. His

matter is listed at Sr. No.12 today. He would submit that Appellant is Defendant No.5 in the Suit proceedings before the Trial Court and the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without hearing the Appellant injuncting Appellant from dealing with the suit property. On facts, he would submit that Appellant is a bonafide purchaser for value in an auction proceeding from the Bank and he has been put in possession rather physical possession of the suit flat.

1 of 4

12.AO.656.2025.doc

He would submit that Plaintiff is a rank third party outsider who claims to have allotment of the same suit flat in his name and despite he having refused interim relief by this Court previously and the Suit been transferred before the City Civil Court, while deciding the Motion exparte trial Court has referred to previous allotment which prima facie cannot fructify in view of the fact that the suit flat was mortgaged to the incumbent Bank which ultimately proceeded under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the flat was purchased by Appellant before me in auction .

In such gross facts, the order passed by the learned Trial Court directing the auction purchaser Defendant not to deal with the flat and restraining him is a very harsh order, especially in the aforementioned facts when has not even been heard.

Another intriguing fact brought to my notice by Mr. Parsurampuria is evident on reading the impugned order. It is seen that Reply was filed by Defendant before the Trial Court in the Motion and the matter was adjourned to a particular day, but before that adjourned day, the matter was heard on the previous day in the evening and the impugned order was passed exparte. In such gross facts prima facie the impugned order is not sustainable. Once the Reply is filed by the Defendant, it is the duty of the Trial Court to ensure that

2 of 4

12.AO.656.2025.doc

the Defendant be heard and more specifically so in the facts of the present case which are delineated and alluded to hereinabove.

In that view of the matter, an arguable case is made out by Mr. Parsurampuria, especially so because Defendant was never heard and the impugned order is an ex-parte order. In that view of the matter, the order is prima facie not sustainable since Defendant ought to have been heard by the Court before passing such an order exparte.

Hence, issue notice to Respondents. Humdast permitted.

In addition to Court notice, Appellant is permitted to serve copy of Appeal From Order, Interim Application and this order on Respondents and inform them about the next date of hearing by any permissible mode of service and file appropriate Affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof on or before the next date.

Right course of action in my opinion would be to set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Trial Court to hear the Notice of Motion of Plaintiff in accordance with law and hear both the parties and thereafter pass final order.

Copy of this order shall be served by the Advocate for Appellant on Plaintiffs who are Respondents before me. Plaintiffs are directed to remain present before this Court on the next adjourned date when this Court proposes to pass appropriate directions and

3 of 4

12.AO.656.2025.doc

orders to dispose of the present Appeal From Order and Interim Application with above directions without prejudice to rights of both parties.

Stand over to 20^th April 2026 . To be placed under the

caption ‘ First on Board ’.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Ajay

Digitally signed by AJAY AJAYTRAMBAKUGALMUGALE TRAMBAKUGALMUGALEDate:2026.04.16 20:46:37 +0530

4 of 4