Disposed¶20

Harishchandra Basdev Sharma and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Feb 2026WP/8057/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Harishchandra Basdev Sharma v. State of Maharashtra; WP 8057 of 2025; Bombay High Court; Ghuge & Mantri JJ.; 09.02.2026; petition disposed as withdrawn; interim relief refused by Civil Court; Civil Suits 209 and 210 of 2023; Respondent No.11; 2198 sq. ft. shop premises; disputed questions; TILR joint measurement application; contentions kept open before Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition permitted to be withdrawn on instructions; if an application for joint measurement (TILR) of the properties is filed, all contentions remain open to be considered by the Trial Court on merits. ¶20

Harishchandra Basdev Sharma and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Chief Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioners could obtain relief in this Court in relation to the shop said to have been erected on an area admeasuring 2198 sq. ft., given that interim relief was denied by the Civil Court in Civil Suits Nos. 209 and 210 of 2023 and disputed questions exist between the parties.

¶15

Court's answer

In view of the Petitioners' decision to withdraw and instead seek appointment of the TILR for joint measurement, the Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn, on instructions.

¶20

Key takeaways

If the Petitioners file an application seeking joint measurement of the properties, all contentions of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the sole Defendant are kept open to be considered by the Trial Court on their own merits.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ravindra V. Ghuge & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.), Writ Petition No. 8057 of 2025, decided 9 February 2026: Harishchandra Basdev Sharma & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. The Petitioners had filed Civil Suits Nos. 209 and 210 of 2023 against Respondent No.11; interim relief had been denied by the Civil Court on the ground that the property description was improperly set out and occupation of an area admeasuring 2198 sq. ft., on which the shop was said to stand, was not prima facie established. Considering the disputed questions and the pending suits, the learned Senior Advocate, on instructions, submitted that the Petitioners would withdraw the Petition and instead seek appointment of the TILR for joint measurement of the Plaintiffs' and the sole Defendant's properties. The Court disposed of the Petition as withdrawn, on instructions, keeping all contentions of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the sole Defendant open to be considered by the Trial Court on merits if an application for joint measurement is filed. No substantive legal point was adjudicated; no precedent relied upon.

¶1

Digitally signed by GAURI GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD AMIT Date: GAEKWAD 2026.02.11 14:42:37 +0530

¶2

26.WP-8057-2025.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8057 OF 2025

¶5

Harishchandra Basdev Sharma & Anr. ….Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents

¶8

Mr. Ramchandra Apte, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. S. Vidya, Ms. Shalaka Karkar, Ms. Divya Maniar, Ms. Nansi Sahani, Ms. Sandhya Tiwari and Ms. Dhanashree Bhate i/b. Siddh Vidya & Associates for the Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w. Ms. Pooja Patil, AGP for the Respondent – State.

¶10

Ms. Swati Sagvekar for Respondent No.2.

¶11

Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w. Ms. Saloni Shah and Mr. Anuj Savla i/b. Trilegal for Respondent No.11.

¶12

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 9^th FEBRUARY, 2026

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

It is contended that the Petitioners have filed Civil Suits

¶15

bearing Nos.209 and 210 of 2023 against Respondent No.11. Interim relief has not been granted by the Civil Court as the description of the property was not properly set out and, at the same time, the Petitioners failed to prima facie establish that they were in occupation of an area admeasuring 2198 sq. ft., on which the shop is said to have been erected.

¶16

Gauri Gaekwad 1 of 2

¶17

26.WP-8057-2025.odt

¶18

2. Considering the disputed questions and the fact that the

¶19

Civil Suits have already been instituted by the Petitioners, the learned Senior Advocate, on instructions, submits that the Petitioners would withdraw this Petition and prefer an application for seeking appointment of TILR for joint measurement of the properties of the Plaintiffs and the sole Defendant.

¶20

In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off as withdrawn , on instructions.

¶21

Needless to state that if the Petitioners file an

¶22

application seeking joint measurement of the properties, all contentions of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs as well as the sole Defendant, are kept open to be considered by the Trial Court on its own merits.

¶23

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶24

2 of 2

¶25

Gauri Gaekwad

Harishchandra Basdev Sharma and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harishchandra Basdev Sharma and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajaram Jainandan Yadav vs the Municipal Commissioner

Chandrabhan Ramdev Singh vs Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika (Education Department) Th. the Municipal Commissioner

Chandrabhan Ramdev Singh vs Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika (Education Department) Th. the Municipal Commissioner

Hiten Ramesh Rajgor vs Union of India

Earth Graphics vs State of Maharashtra through Its Urban Development Department

High Street Impex LLP vs State of Maharashtra Dept of Food and Drug Administraton Throu. Commissioner and Anr.