Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Katty Minoo Dastur and another, filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 10th November 2025 passed by the learned Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. The impugned order was passed in Appeal No.50 of 2023 arising out of R.A.E. Suit No.1868 of 2009. By the said order, the Appellate Court allowed the application (Exhibit-34) seeking stay of six weeks to the eviction decree as confirmed by the Appellate Court, but imposed conditions requiring the petitioners to deposit the entire decretal amount and mesne profits. The petitioners contended that the conditions were onerous and unreasonable, and that the Appellate Court had erred in imposing such conditions without considering their financial hardship. The respondent, WMT Apparels Pvt. Ltd., opposed the petition, arguing that the conditions were reasonable and necessary to protect the decree-holder's interests. The High Court heard both sides and examined the impugned order. The court noted that the Appellate Court had exercised its discretion under Section 43 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, and had imposed conditions that were not arbitrary or excessive. The High Court held that the power under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate, and interference is warranted only in cases of grave injustice or patent error. Since the impugned order was a reasonable exercise of discretion, the court declined to interfere. The petition was dismissed, and the stay granted by the Appellate Court was upheld subject to the conditions imposed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Stay of Eviction Decree - Conditional Stay - Section 43 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 - The petitioners challenged the order of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court granting stay of six weeks to the eviction decree on condition of depositing the entire decretal amount and mesne profits. The High Court held that the appellate court has discretion to impose conditions while granting stay, and the conditions imposed were reasonable and not onerous, as they were intended to protect the interests of the decree-holder. The court declined to interfere under Article 227. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The High Court reiterated that the power under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate, and interference is warranted only in cases of grave injustice or patent error. The impugned order was found to be a reasonable exercise of discretion, and no interference was called for. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court was justified in imposing conditions of depositing the entire decretal amount and mesne profits while granting stay of six weeks to the eviction decree, and whether such conditions are unreasonable or onerous warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the order of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dated 10th November 2025. The conditional stay granted by the Appellate Court was affirmed, and no interference under Article 227 was warranted.
Law Points
- Conditional stay of eviction decree
- Mesne profits
- Section 43 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act
- 1882
- Article 227 Constitution of India
- Discretion of appellate court
- Reasonable conditions
