Suresh S/O Mahadeorao Mankar and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Cooperation, Mumbai and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Suresh S/O Mahadeorao Mankar and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Cooperation, Mumbai and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of; respondent No.2 directed to decide the pending appeal under Section 18(4) of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 expeditiously, preferably within six months; parties directed to maintain status-quo (as regards mutation of the suit property) in the meantime; all issues on merits kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim order dated 29.01.2026 passed by respondent No.2, Divisional Registrar (Money Lending), Amravati, refusing interim relief in the proceedings under Section 18(4) of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 — challenged on the ground that the proceedings were initiated after about 17 years from the first sale-deed dated 09.06.2003 — calls for interference. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the appeal under Section 18(4) of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 is going on before respondent No.2, the controversy on merits will be decided while deciding that appeal; it is desirable that the appeal be permitted to be adjudicated on merits, while directing the parties to maintain status-quo.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the pending appeal expeditiously, preferably within the period of six months.

Key takeaways

In the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo as per the Court's earlier order (as regards mutation of the suit property), and all issues on merits are kept open.ratio¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Challenge to interim order dated 29.01.2026 passed by respondent No.2, Divisional Registrar (Money Lending), Amravati, in proceedings under Section 18(4) of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, refusing interim relief; challenge founded on the proceedings having been initiated about 17 years after the first sale-deed dated 09.06.2003, with three other sale-deeds executed thereafter. Held: the appeal under Section 18(4) is pending before respondent No.2 and the controversy on merits will be decided therein; the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months, the parties maintaining status-quo as regards mutation of the suit property in the meantime; all issues on merits kept open.

2026:BHC-NAG:4685

1 32-WP-1190-2026.odt

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

WRIT PETITION NO.1190 OF 2026

Suresh S/O Mahadeorao Mankar And Others Vs.

State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. Of Cooperation, Mumbai And

Others

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

Mr. Raheel Mirza, Advocate for the Petitioners. Ms. K.H. Bhondge, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State. Mr. V.B. Bhise, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

CORAM: PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J . DATED : 18th MARCH, 2026

Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned counsels for respondents.

On 09.02.2026, this Court has passed the

following Order :-

“ Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

The petitioners’ challenge is to the interim order dated 29.01.2026 passed by respondent No.2 Divisional Registrar (Money Lending), Amravati, in the proceedings under Section 18 (4) of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, on the ground that the proceedings are initiated after a period of about 17 years from the date of the first sale-deed dated 09.06.2003. He also submits that after this sale-deed, three other sale-deeds were executed, and, without considering all these aspects, the impugned order is passed refusing any interim relief.

Having regard to the controversy involved, issue notice to the respondents, returnable after three weeks.

Learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4/State.

2 32-WP-1190-2026.odt

In the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo as regards the mutation of suit property”

While considering the controversy, it is seen that the challenge is to an interim order passed by respondent No.2 and the proceedings of Appeal under Section 18(4) of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 are going on. As such, the controversy on merits will be decided while deciding the appeal and hence, it is desirable that the appeal is permitted to be adjudicated on merits, while directing the parties to maintain status-quo.

Learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondents also submitted that the parties are ready to maintain the above mentioned status-quo as regards the mutation of the suit property during the pendency of the appeal before respondent No.2, however, they seek a direction to expedite the decision of the appeal.

Having regard to the controversy involved, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within the period of six months.

In the meantime, parties are directed to maintain status-quo as per the above mentioned order. All issues on merits are kept open.

𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁