Bombay High Court Disposes of Appeal Against Interim Injunction in Property Dispute, Directs Expedited Trial. Court declines to adjudicate interim matter on merits, orders trial court to decide suit expeditiously while maintaining status quo as per earlier order.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 91
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, Smt. Florinda Bhardwa and Shri Ramesh Bhardwa, filed an appeal against an interim order dated 17/11/2003 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, in a temporary injunction application. The trial court had directed the defendants to maintain status quo in respect of the suit access, not to interfere with the suit strip lying to the west of the suit plot, and not to create third party interest or transfer the suit plot until the suit was decided on merits. The suit, Special Civil Suit No. 59/2000/A, was filed in the year 2000. During the appeal, this Court on 30/04/2004 modified the trial court's order, restricting it to maintenance of status quo regarding use of access, permitting the applicants to pluck fruits from trees in the disputed strip, and allowing transfer of property subject to the condition that the transferee would not get better title and would be bound by the result of the litigation. The Court observed that the suit was of the year 2000 and must be ripe for hearing, and therefore no purpose would be served by adjudicating the interim matter on merits at this stage. Accordingly, the Court directed the trial court to take up the matter for adjudication on merits after giving opportunity to both sides to lead evidence as early as possible. In the meantime, parties were directed to be bound by the earlier order passed by this Court on 30/04/2004 in the civil application. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Status Quo - Appeal against interim order - Court declined to adjudicate interim matter on merits as suit was pending since 2000 and directed trial court to expedite hearing - Held that no purpose would be served by deciding interim matter at this stage (Paras 2-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appeal against the interim order granting status quo should be adjudicated on merits or whether the suit should be expedited for final disposal.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is disposed of with direction to the trial court to take up the suit for adjudication on merits as early as possible. Parties shall be bound by the earlier order of this Court dated 30/04/2004. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Interim injunction
  • status quo
  • expedited trial
  • disposal of appeal without adjudicating merits
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (11) 104

Appeal from Order No. 13 of 2004

2006-11-24

P.V. Kakade, J.

Shri J.E. Coelho Pereira, Sr. Advocate with Shri V. Korgaonkar, Advocate for the Appellants; Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondents

Smt. Florinda Bhardwa and Shri Ramesh Bhardwa

Shri Datta Damodar Kakule and Smt. Jyotsnabai Datta Kakule

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against interim order in a civil suit concerning property dispute.

Remedy Sought

The appellants sought to challenge the interim order of status quo and other restrictions imposed by the trial court.

Filing Reason

The appellants were aggrieved by the interim order dated 17/11/2003 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, directing them to maintain status quo and not interfere with the suit strip.

Previous Decisions

The trial court passed an interim order on 17/11/2003 directing status quo and other restrictions. This Court on 30/04/2004 modified the order, restricting it to status quo regarding access, permitting plucking of fruits, and allowing transfer subject to conditions.

Issues

Whether the appeal against the interim order should be adjudicated on merits or whether the suit should be expedited for final disposal.

Submissions/Arguments

Heard both the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

When a suit is pending for a considerable time and is ripe for hearing, no purpose is served by adjudicating an interim matter on merits; instead, the trial court should be directed to expedite the final hearing.

Judgment Excerpts

In my considered view, the suit must be right for hearing and, therefore, no purpose would be served by adjudicating the interim matter on merits at this stage. With this direction, the appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

Procedural History

The suit was filed in 2000 as Special Civil Suit No. 59/2000/A. The trial court passed an interim order on 17/11/2003. The appellants filed Appeal from Order No. 13 of 2004. This Court passed an order on 30/04/2004 modifying the interim order. The appeal was finally disposed of on 24/11/2006.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Judicature at Mumbai Allows Writ Petitions of Teachers Seeking Approval of Appointments Against Clear Vacancies — Directions Issued to Education Department to Consider Approvals Without Regard to Committee Legality. Teachers Appointed...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Disposes of Appeal Against Interim Injunction in Property Dispute, Directs Expedited Trial. Court declines to adjudicate interim matter on merits, orders trial court to decide suit expeditiously while maintaining status quo as per e...