Bombay High Court
MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM JUMAL KHAN AND OTHERSversusSLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY (SRA) AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appeal is disposed of, directing the trial court to decide the pending notice of motion within six weeks and prohibiting any adjournments.
Summary
The appellants filed an appeal under Order XXIII Rule 1 read with Section 104 of the CPC against the City Civil Court's order refusing ad interim relief in a pending notice of motion. The High Court observed that the notice of motion remains before the trial court and directed that it be decided expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, without any adjournments. The court emphasized that it had not examined the merits of the substantive dispute and left all contentions open for the trial court's independent adjudication. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of without costs, and the status quo was to be maintained until the trial court hearing. Interim applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellate court can grant ad interim relief when the notice of motion is pending before the trial court
- Whether the trial court should be directed to decide the notice of motion within a specified time frame
- Whether parties may seek adjournments in the hearing of the pending notice of motion
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XXIII Rule 1, Section 104
Subjects
- Appellate jurisdiction
- Interim relief
- Civil Procedure Code
- Adjournment
- Status quo
- Notice of motion
Judgment
15-AO-843-26.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
18:55:48 +0530
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 843 OF 2026
Mohammad Ibrahim Jumal Khan 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.10680 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
15-AO-843-26.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
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.