Bombay High Court
MOOSA MADAM KHAN AND ORSversusSHAIKH YUNUS HAJI ABDUL JABBAR AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIF S DOCTOR
Holding
The appeal is dismissed as the appellant is not aggrieved by the restraining order.
Summary
The Bombay High Court heard an appeal against a 2015 order of the Bombay City Civil Court that restrained certain defendants from constructing on a plot of land in Kausa, Thane, and an office premises in Mumbai. The appellant, Moosa Madam Khan, represented the Haj Committee Mazdoor Welfare Society, claimed the order affected the society’s interests because the plot was originally purchased with pilgrimage funds for worker housing, later sold to Defendant No.6 who was constructing on it. The court found that the appellant was not in possession of the land nor carrying out construction and therefore had no personal grievance. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of standing, and the related civil applications were disposed of. The decision underscores that a party must demonstrate a direct adverse effect to maintain an appeal from an order.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant has locus standi to challenge a restraining order when not in possession or undertaking construction on the property.
- Whether the appeal from order is maintainable in the absence of a direct personal grievance.
Subjects
- civil procedure
- injunction
- standing
- appeal from order
- property dispute
- restraining order
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
MEERA 1/3 11-AO-659-19.DOC
MEERA MAHESH
MAHESH JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
2026.03.06
10:26:30
+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 659 OF 2019
Moosa Madam Khan And Ors ...Appellants
Versus
Shaikh Yunus Haji Abdul Jabbar And Ors ...Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.756 OF 2019
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.660 OF 2019
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.757 OF 2019
-----
Ms S.V. Sonawane a/w Mr. S.P. Sonawane for Appellant in AO/659/19
Mr. Zhoaib Sayyed for Respondent in AO/659/19 and for Appellant in
AO/660/19.
-----
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE : 4th MARCH 2026
P.C.
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.659 OF 2019
1 Heard Ms Sonawane, appearing on behalf of the Appellant. The present
Appeal from Order impugns an order dated 9 th May 2015 passed by the Bombay
City Civil Court in Notice of Motion No.1579 of 2011 in S.C.Suit No.1628 of
2011. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has restrained the Defendant
Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 to the Suit thereby carrying on any constructions / develop in
respect of suit property which are described as follows:
Meera Jadhav
2/3 11-AO-659-19.DOC
(i) Plot of Land situate at Kausa, Mumbra, Dist Thane bearing Survey No. 36,
Hissa No. 2 (part) of Village Kausa, Taluka and Disrtrict Thane.
(ii) Office premises situate at 4-B Madina Building Compound, Ground Floor,
Musafirkhana Road, Crawford Market, Mumbai-01.
2 Ms Sonawane submits that the Appellant was Defendant No.1 to the Suit
and was the representative of the Haj Committee Mazdoor Welfare Society. She
submts that in that capacity, Defendant No.1 had collected monies from various
pilgrims, who were going for Haj, from which monies the said plot of land at
Kausa was purchased for construction of housing for the workers / labourers,
who would help the pilgrims going to Haj by leading their belongings on to the
ship in question. She submitted that thereafter since the travel by ship reduced,
these workers were left without any employment and most of them accordingly
returned to their respective villages. She submits that the said plot in question
was thereafter sold to Defendant No.6 to the suit, i.e., Salim Dole and it is
Defendant No.6, who is carrying on construction on the said plot of land.
Defendant No.6, I am informed, has filed an independent Appeal from order, by
which the impugned order is challenged.
3 In the above facts, when it was put to Ms Sonawane as to how the
Appellant in this Appeal from Order was aggreived by the said order, since the
Appellant was not carrying on construction, nor was the Appellant in possession
of the said plot, she fairly conceded that the Appellant would not be aggreived
personally and was only supporting the construction on the said plot by
Defendant No.6- Salim Dole.
4 In these circumstances, given that the Appellant is admittedly on the
Meera Jadhav
3/3 11-AO-659-19.DOC
Appellant’s own showing is not aggrieved, there is no merit in this Appeal from
Order, the same is accordingly dismissed.
5 In view of the dismisal of the Appeal from order, the Civil Application
does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.660 OF 2019
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.757 OF 2019
6 Mr. Sayyed appearing for the Appellant submits that he is today not ready
to argue and seeks time.
7 Stand over to 29th April 2026
[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]
Meera Jadhav
Checking your session…