Bombay High Court
HARESH HEMRAJ GORIversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appellate court may dispose of the appeal without reaching the merits and may direct the trial court to dispose of the pending notice of motion on the scheduled date, prohibiting any adjournments.
Summary
The appellant, Haresh Hemraj Gori, appealed an order of the City Civil Court that refused interim relief in a pending notice of motion. The High Court noted that the notice of motion had been pending for a long time and the municipal corporation had not filed a reply. Without examining the merits, the Court directed the trial court to dispose of the notice of motion on the scheduled hearing date of 14 October 2026 and barred any adjournments. The municipal corporation was allowed to file a reply, if any, before that date. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any view on the substantive dispute and disposed of the appeal without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether an appellate court can dispose of an appeal from an order without addressing the merits of the underlying dispute
- Whether the appellate court may direct the trial court to dispose of a pending notice of motion on a fixed date and prohibit adjournments
- Whether Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits such an appeal and direction
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XLIII Rule 1
Subjects
- interim relief
- appeal from order
- Code of Civil Procedure
- adjournment
- notice of motion
- procedural law
- municipal corporation
Judgment
1 of 2 4.AO.299.2021.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.299 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO2624 OF 2021
Haresh Hemraj Gori Appellant
versus
The Municipal Corpn of Greater Mumbai Respondent
_______
Mr.Pradeep J.Thorat for Appellant.
Ms.Neeta Jadhav i/by Ms.Komal Punjabi for Respondent-MCGM
_______
CORAM : AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE : 29th September 2026
P.C.
1. This Appeal from Order has been filed under Order XLIII, Rule 1 of
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, taking exception to the order dated 22 nd September
2021 passed by learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai (`Trial Court’) in draft
Notice of Motion in L.C.Suit No.7471 of 2021 thereby refusing to grant ad-
interim relief in favour of the Appellant
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Notice of Motion is
pending hearing and the same has been posted for hearing on 14 th October 2026.
He has also submitted that till date the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
(`MCGM’) has not filed reply to the aforesaid Notice of Motion.
Digitally signed
by MANISH
3. Considering that the Notice of Motion is pending for long time and no
MANISH SURESHRAO
SURESHRAO THATTE
THATTE Date: 2026.09.29
15:10:47 +0530
adjudication has taken place, this Court without delving into the merits of the case,
deems it appropriate to dispose of the Appeal from Order with a direction to the
M.S.Thatte
2 of 2 4.AO.299.2021.DOC
Trial Court to dispose of the Notice of Motion as expeditiously as possible and on
the date fixed for the hearing of Notice of Motion i.e. 14 th October 2026. Parties
are directed not to seek adjournment on 14 th October 2026. All contentions of the
parties are expressly kept open.
4. The MCGM will be free to file reply to the Notice of Motion, if any, on
or before 14th October 2026.
5. The protection granted to the Appellant by order dated 1 st October
2021 by this Court, to continue to operate till the hearing of Notice of Motion on
14th October 2026.
6. Needless to clarify that this Court has not expressed its views or
rendered any finding in respect of the dispute covered in this Appeal from Order.
7. Appeal from Order stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
Interim Application does not survive and stands disposed of.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
M.S.Thatte
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.