Bombay High Court
PEER MOHAMMAD ROOSTAM ALI HASHMI AND OTHERSversusSLUM REHABILILATION AUTHORITY (SRA) AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appellate court held that the trial court must decide the pending notice of motion expeditiously, within six weeks, and no adjournments are permitted, disposing of the appeal.
Summary
The appellants, Peer Mohammad Roostam Ali Hashmi and others, appealed against an order of the City Civil Court, Bombay, which had denied ad interim relief in a draft notice of motion filed in L.C. Suit No.10679 of 2026. The appeal was filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 read with Rule 104 of the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court, after hearing counsel, observed that the notice of motion remains pending before the trial court and should be decided expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, without any further adjournments. The court expressly refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the parties' contentions, leaving them open for the trial court to adjudicate. Consequently, the appeal was disposed without costs, and the status quo was ordered to be maintained until the trial court hearing.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellate court should grant ad interim relief and stay the trial court proceedings in the pending notice of motion
- Whether the trial court should be directed to decide the notice of motion within a specific time frame
- Whether parties may seek adjournments in the hearing of the notice of motion
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XXIII Rule 1, Rule 104
Subjects
- Civil Procedure Code
- interim relief
- appeal
- stay of proceedings
- adjournment
- status quo
- trial court
- notice of motion
Judgment
14-AO-842-26.DOC
JYOTI
RAJESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by JYOTI RAJESH
MANE
Date: 2026.10.06
18:55:49 +0530
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 842 OF 2026
Peer Mohammad Roostam Ali Hashmi And Others ...Appellants
Versus
Slum Rehabililation Authority (sra) And Others ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Sagar Batavia i/b. Mr. Samir Sarambhalkar, for Appellants.
Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal i/b. R.S.Justicia Law Chambers, for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Yashi Bhatt, (Through V.C.), for Respondent .
Mr. Dinesh J. Haldankar, AGP for Respondent No.2-State.
Ms. Smita Tondwalkar i/b. Komal Punjabi, for Respondent No.3-BMC.
_______
CORAM: AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE: 06 OCTOBER 2026
P.C.
1. This Appeal from order has been filed under Order XXLIII Rule 1 read
with 104 of the Civil Procedure Code (‘CPC”) against the order dated 08 August
2026 passed by the City Civil Court at Bombay, (Trial Court ) in Draft Notice of
Motion in L.C.Suit St.No.10679 of 2026 by which ad interim prayers as prayed
were not granted in aforesaid Notice of Motion.
2. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court
is of the view that, since the Notice of Motion is pending adjudication before the
trial Court, it would be appropriate for the trial Court to decide the aforesaid
Page 1 of 2
Mane
14-AO-842-26.DOC
Notice of Motion as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of six
weeks from today.
3. The parties to the proceedings shall not seek any adjournment at the hearing
of the aforesaid Notice of Motion.
4. Needless to observe that this Court has not delved into the merits of the
case and has not expressed any prima facie view in respect of the rival contentions.
The trial Court shall independently adjudicate upon the rival contentions raised by
the parties in the aforesaid Notice of Motion.
5. All contentions of the parties in respect thereof are expressly kept open.
6. The Appeal from Order is, therefore, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No
order as to costs.
7. Interim Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
8. Status quo shall be maintained by both parties until the hearing of the
aforesaid Notice of Motion.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Mane
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.