Bombay High Court
MAYA V. MULCHANDANIversusTHE MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appeal from the order is disposed of without adjudicating the merits, and the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within four months.
Summary
The appellant, Dr. Maya V. Mulchandani, appealed an order dated 6 March 2020 of the City Civil Court, Mumbai, which had dismissed his notice of motion in L.C. Suit No. 4620 of 2012. The appeal was filed under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 104. The trial court had already progressed to the evidence stage, specifically the cross‑examination of DW‑2, and a final hearing was imminent. The High Court, without addressing the merits, directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within four months, and ordered that any adverse order against the appellant not be acted upon for two weeks. The appellate court expressly stated that it had not formed any prima facie view on the merits, kept all contentions open, and disposed of the appeal and the interim application without costs.
Issues considered
- The propriety of entertaining an appeal from an order when the trial is at the final stage of evidence.
- Whether the appellate court can direct the trial court to dispose of the suit within a specified time without deciding the merits.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XLIII Rule 1(r), Section 104
Subjects
- Appellate jurisdiction
- Civil Procedure
- Order disposal
- Interim application
- Costs
Judgment
1 of 2 3.AO.39.2021.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.39 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.332 OF 2021
Dr..Maya V.Mulchandani Appellant
versus
The Mumbai Municipal Corporation and another Respondents
_______
Mr.Sanket Mungale for Appellant.
Ms.S.V.Tondwalkar i/by Ms.Komal Punjabi for Respondent-MCGM.
_______
CORAM : AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE : 6th October 2026
P.C.
1. This Appeal from Order filed under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of Code of
Civil Procedure (`CPC’) read with Section 104 has been filed against the impugned
order dated 6th March 2020 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai (`Trial Court’)
in Notice of Motion No.3071 of 2012 in L.C.Suit No.4620 of 2012 whereby the
Trial Court dismissed the Notice of Motion filed by the Appellant.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant has fairly submitted today that the
trial before the Trial Court has proceeded and it is at the stage of evidence and
cross-examination of DW-2.
3. Considering the fact that the trial has advanced to final stage and final
hearing is likely to take place soon, this Court is of the view that, without delving
Digitally signed
MANISH by MANISH
SURESHRAO
SURESHRAO THATTE into the merits of the matter and without forming any view as far as challenge in
THATTE Date: 2026.10.06
17:43:06 +0530
the Appeal from Order is concerned, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the
M.S.Thatte
2 of 2 3.AO.39.2021.DOC
L.C.Suit No.4620 of 2012 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a
period of four months from the date of this order.
4. Needless to clarify that this Court has not expressed any prima facie
view or dealt with merits of the matter. All contentions of the parties are expressly
kept open.
5. Appeal from Order is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
Interim Application does not survive and stands disposed of as such.
6. If in the event an order is passed against the Appellant in the suit, such
order be not acted upon for two weeks.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
M.S.Thatte
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.