Mohammad Yakub Abdul Kadar Saudagar and Others vs Amol Shrihari Lahane and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Mohammad Yakub Abdul Kadar Saudagar and Others vs Amol Shrihari Lahane and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to the petitioners; the writ petition stands rejected. The learned District Judge is directed to endeavour to decide the pending appeal expeditiously and, in any case, within three months, with parties to cooperate.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, whose plaint in Special Civil Suit No.5 of 2023 was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and whose appeal R.C.A. No.49 of 2025 is pending, were entitled to grant/continuation of interim relief during pendency of the appeal notwithstanding rejection of the plaint.

Court's answer

This Court holds that there cannot be two views about the law espoused by the Supreme Court of India in IEEE Mumbai Section, i.e., it treats as settled the position that no injunction can be granted after rejection of a plaint unless the rejection is reversed.

Ratio / Principle

On that settled footing, the appellate court was justified in refusing to entertain the application for interim relief in the pending appeal.

Key takeaways

In light of the factual and legal backdrop, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), single-judge bench (S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.) — writ petition rejected. The plaint in Special Civil Suit No.5 of 2023 had been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code; in the pending appeal (R.C.A. No.49 of 2025 before the District Judge-2, Ambajogai), the plaintiff-appellant's application below Exhibit-5 for interim relief was refused by order dated 28.1.2026. Counsel argued that interim relief granted during the suit ought to have continued in the appeal. The High Court held there cannot be two views about the law espoused by the Supreme Court in IEEE Mumbai Section Welfare Association Vs. Global IEEE Institute for Engineers (Civil Appeal No.7235 of 2025, decided on 27.5.2025) — namely, that no injunction can be granted after rejection of a plaint unless the rejection is reversed, as equitable relief under Order XXXIX cannot survive in absence of a pending suit — and consequently the appellate court was justified in refusing to entertain the interim-relief application. The writ petition was rejected, with a direction to decide the pending appeal expeditiously, in any case within three months.

2026:BHC-AUG:9255

wp 1607.26.odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

940 WRIT PETITION NO. 1607 OF 2026

Mohammad Yakub Abdul Kadar Saudagar And Others VERSUS

Amol Shrihari Lahane And Another

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.R. Kedar Advocate for Respondents 1,2 : Mr. Sayyed Tauseef Yaseen

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Dated : February 25, 2026

PER COURT :-

Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated 28.1.2026 passed below Exhibit-5 in RCA No.49 of 2025 by the learned District Judge-2, Ambajogai, whereby petitioners prayer for grant of interim relief in pending appeal has been rejected.

Petitioner is original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.5 of 2023. Trial court rejected the plaint under order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Petitioner preferred R.C.A. No.49 of 2025 which is pending consideration before the District Judge. Petitioner filed an application for interim relief, pending decision in appeal. The Appellate Court refused to entertain the said application. Hence, present writ petition.

wp 1607.26.odt

2

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that during pendency of the suit, interim relief was granted in favour of plaintiffs. Therefore, in appeal, similar relief ought to have been continued.

Learned counsel appearing for respondents opposes grant of any relief on the basis of contents of affidavit-in-reply filed and taken on record. Learned counsel appearing for respondents invites attention of this Court to the observations recorded in the impugned order, particularly, paragraph no.7, whereby giving reference to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of IEEE Mumbai Section Welfare Association Vs. Global IEEE Institute for Engineers (Civil Appeal No.7235 of 2025, decided on 27.5.2025) it has been observed that no injunction can be granted after rejection of plaint unless the rejection is reversed, as equitable relief under Order XXXIX cannot survive in absence of a pending suit.

There cannot be two views about the law espoused by the Supreme Court of India in case of IEEE Mumbai Section (Supra). The appellate Court is, therefore, justified in refusing to entertain the application for interim relief.

3 wp 1607.26.odt

In light of aforesaid factual and legal backdrop, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. However, it would be appropriate in the interest of justice if the proceeding in appeal is expedited. In result, following order is passed.

Order

i. Writ Petition stands rejected .

ii. The learned District Judge shall endeavor to decide the pending appeal expeditiously and, in any case, within a period of three months from today. Parties to cooperate.

( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )

AAA/-f