Bombay High Court
SHAIKH FAYYAZ SHAIKH AYYAZ AND OTHERSversusSHAIKH NASER SHAIKH IBRAHIM
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court did not set aside the injunction but ordered the trial court to conclude the suit expeditiously within one year, disposing of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner challenged the temporary injunction granted in a civil suit (Suit No.64 of 2023) and its subsequent confirmation, arguing that the suit was frivolous and the injunction should not have been issued. The injunction was granted on the basis of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CrPC. The petitioner appealed the injunction order, but the District Court declined to interfere. The High Court, while not overturning the injunction, directed the trial court to expedite the suit proceedings and dispose of the matter within one year, keeping all parties' contentions open. The writ petition was consequently disposed with directions for a time‑bound trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the temporary injunction granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and Section 151 CrPC is maintainable.
- Whether the appellate court should set aside the injunction order.
- Whether the underlying civil suit is frivolous and maintainable.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. Section 151
Subjects
- temporary injunction
- Order 39 CPC
- Section 151 CrPC
- writ petition
- expeditious trial
- frivolous suit
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40014
(1) 929-WP-11354-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
929 WRIT PETITION NO. 11354 OF 2024
Shaikh Naser Shaikh Ibrahim
VERSUS
Shaikh Ayas Shaikh Afsar Through Gpa Anil Shantilal Chordiya
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5228 OF 2026
IN WP-11354-2024
Shaikh Fayyaz Shaikh Ayyaz And Others
VERSUS
Shaikh Naser Shaikh Ibrahim
…..
Mr. Anil S. Bajaj, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Khivansara, Advocate for Appellant through V. C.
…..
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 1, 2026.
PC :-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings in Regular Civil Suit
No.64 of 2023 filed by the respondents in the Court of learned Joint Civil
Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad. In the said Suit, an application under
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure came to be filed by the plaintiffs against the petitioner, seeking a
temporary injunction.
Kiran Kawre
(2) 929-WP-11354-2024
2. The said application was allowed. Being dissatisfied with the order, the
petitioner approached the District Court by filing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal
No.129 of 2023. However, by the impugned order dated 18 June 2024, the
learned District Judge-4, Aurangabad, recorded his disinclination to interfere
with the order impugned therein.
3. Thus, the petitioner has challenged both the orders, i.e., the order
granting the injunction and the order confirming the said injunction, in the
present petition. The suit is of the year 2023. The application for temporary
injunction was tested only on three parameters, i.e., prima facie case, balance
of convenience and irreparable loss. On that count, the injunction was
imposed and was subsequently confirmed. As it could be seen that the first
injunction order has been operating since August 2023.
4. In view of this, I am of the considered view that instead of going into
merits of case, the suit could be expedited. However, in the interest of justice,
it is necessary to request the trial Court to conclude the suit proceedings in a
time-bound manner.
5. Mr. Bajaj, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that in fact
the suit proceedings itself are bogus and frivolous. He also objects to the
maintainability of the suit. His apprehension is that the findings recorded by
the trial Court as also by the First Appellate Court must not influence the trial.
Kiran Kawre
(3) 929-WP-11354-2024
6. I do not have any reason to disagree with such submissions. In view of
this, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a request to the
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad to conclude the suit trial as
expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of one year from
today. It is clarified that any observations marked by the trial Court while
deciding the temporary injunction application and the observations made by
the First Appellate Court while deciding the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal are
restricted to the extent of the Exhibit – 5 application only.
7. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
8. The petitioner is at liberty to demonstrate how the plaint is liable to be
rejected/returned and even demonstrate that the suit is not maintainable. The
trial Court shall decide the suit and such application, if filed, on its own
merits.
9. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of.
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
Kiran Kawre
Checking your session…