Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a suit filed by respondent no.1 before the Bombay High Court challenging a conveyance and seeking appointment of a court receiver over the suit property. The appellants, including a private limited company, individuals, and a society, challenged an interlocutory order dated 6 July 2026 passed by a single judge in Interim Application No.1535 of 2026, which directed eviction of appellant no.2 and his son from two rooms in the suit property without permitting a reply to the interim application. The appellants claimed possession since June-July 2012 under a leave and license agreement with a co-owner. In November 2021, respondent no.1 filed the suit, and on 4 January 2024 a court receiver was appointed. The receiver's report indicated that appellant no.2 resided on the second floor with his son and daughter. In February 2026, respondent no.1 moved the interim application seeking eviction. On 6 July 2026, when the application was first listed, a red alert was issued due to incessant rains, and the appellants through a junior advocate sought two weeks to file a reply because appellant no.2 had been hospitalized and was discharged the previous day. Despite this, the single judge passed the impugned order. The appellate bench examined the record and noted that the earlier appeal against the receiver order had been unconditionally withdrawn on 6 February 2026. Various orders dated 26 March 2024, 28 March 2024, 1 July 2024, 27 August 2024, and 4 August 2025 showed that the appellants had not pursued the appeal and had conditionally surrendered the entire property except the two rooms. The single judge had granted two weeks to file a reply and four weeks to vacate, failing which police assistance would be provided to the receiver. The appellants filed the present appeal on 15 July 2026. The court framed issues regarding whether the single judge was justified in passing the eviction order without first allowing a reply, whether appellate interference was warranted, and whether the appeal constituted abuse of process. The appellants argued that they had been in possession since 2012, had purchased a share in 2013, and were denied an opportunity because of hospitalization. The respondents argued that the appellants were wrongfully withholding possession and should have vacated earlier. Applying the principles in Wander Ltd. v. Antox Pvt. Ltd. and Rakesh Kumar Goel v. UP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., the court held that in an appeal against an interlocutory order, it should not interfere unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or contrary to settled law. The unconditional withdrawal of the earlier appeal removed the impediment for the receiver to take possession, making continued occupation willful and deliberate. The court found the appeal to be an abuse of process intended to delay eviction. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000 payable to respondent no.1 within two weeks, the interim application was disposed of, and the matter was listed for reporting compliance on 3 September 2026.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interlocutory Appeals - Scope of Appellate Interference - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - In an appeal against an interlocutory order, appellate court should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the single judge unless shown to be arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or contrary to settled legal principles; reliance placed on Wander Ltd. v. Antox Pvt. Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727; Held that the single judge rightly exercised discretion after considering the entire record and no justifiable reason to interfere existed (Paras 11-12). B) Possession - Court Receiver - Effect of Withdrawal of Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The unconditional withdrawal of the earlier appeal on 6 February 2026 removed the impediment for the court receiver to take forcible possession; the appellants were bound to hand over the two rooms and their continued retention for more than four months was willful and deliberate; Held that the single judge was justified in directing eviction (Paras 6-9). C) Abuse of Process - Vexatious Litigation - Costs - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The present appeal was an abuse of the process with clear intent to delay handing over possession; referring to Rakesh Kumar Goel and Ors. v. UP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 263, the court held that litigation is not a lottery ticket and court is not for manipulators; Held appeal dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000 payable to respondent no.1 within two weeks (Paras 13-14.1). D) Civil Procedure - Interim Application - Opportunity to File Reply - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellants contended they were denied an opportunity to file a reply, but the single judge had kept back the matter in the morning session and permitted reply within two weeks while granting four weeks to vacate; Held that no purpose would be served by filing a reply and no interference was warranted (Paras 2-3, 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the eviction order dated 6 July 2026 without permitting the Appellants to file a reply to the Interim Application; whether the Appellate Court should interfere with the discretionary interlocutory order in the absence of arbitrariness, capriciousness or perversity; whether the present Appeal was an abuse of process to delay handing over possession.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000 payable to Respondent No.1 within two weeks from the date of uploading of the judgment; Interim Application disposed of; matter listed for reporting compliance on 3 September 2026.
Law Points
- Appellate court should not interfere with discretionary interlocutory orders unless arbitrary
- capricious
- perverse or settled principles ignored
- unconditional withdrawal of appeal removes impediment for court receiver to take possession
- continuing possession after withdrawal of appeal is willful and deliberate
- litigation is not a lottery ticket and court is not for manipulators
- repetitious or vexatious litigation amounts to abuse of process
