Bombay High Court
TAMIZABI MANZOOR AHMED KHAN POA NAZEER AHMEDKHAN MANJUR AHMED KHANversusSAYED AMANAT SHARFODDIN USTAND DIED THROUGH LRS MAQBOOLBI AMANAT USTAD AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court may issue a direction to a lower court to conclude pending proceedings within a specified time without adjudicating the merits of the case.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the District Court to conclude a pending appeal (Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.11 of 2023) within a fixed period, after their application for a temporary injunction was rejected. The petition was limited to procedural acceleration and did not challenge the merits of the underlying dispute. Both parties’ counsel agreed that a time‑bound direction was appropriate. The High Court ordered the learned District Judge, Udgir, to dispose of the appeal within six months from the date the order is recorded. The writ petition and any pending civil applications were disposed of, with the Court expressly stating it did not opine on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can direct a lower court to expedite the disposal of a pending appeal.
- Whether such a direction is permissible under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 10
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Temporary injunction
- CPC Order VII Rule 10
- Direction to lower court
- Expeditious disposal
- Jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40010
(1) 915-WP-2688-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
915 WRIT PETITION NO. 2688 OF 2024
Tamizabi Manzoor Ahmed Khan Poa Nazeer Ahmedkhan Manjur Ahmed Khan
VERSUS
Sayed Amanat Sharfoddin Ustand Died Thr. Lrs. Maqboolbi Amanat Ustad &
Ors.
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6018 OF 2025
IN WP-2688-2024
Tamizabi Manzoor Ahmed Khan Poa Nazeer Ahmedkhan Manjur Ahmed Khan
VERSUS
Sayed Amanat Sharfoddin Ustand Died Through Lrs Maqboolbi Amanat Ustad
& Ors.
…..
Mr. A. A. Shaikh h/f., Mr. Anandsingh Bayas, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. G. R. Sayed, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1-A to 1-I.
…..
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 1, 2026.
PC :-
1. Heard.
2. At the outset, Mr. Bayas, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly
submits that the petitioner restricts his petition to a very limited extent. He
would submit that, as against the order rejecting the plaint under Order VII
Rule 10 of the CPC, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the District
Court. He would submit that, in the said appeal, an application seeking
temporary injunction was filed, which came to be rejected, and hence, the
Kiran Kawre
(2) 915-WP-2688-2024
writ petition has been filed before this Court. Today, he submits that his
purpose would be served if directions are given to the District Court to
conclude the proceedings in the appeal in a time-bound manner.
3. Mr. G. R. Sayed, learned counsel for the respondents, would fairly
agrees to such proposition.
4. The request advanced by Mr. Bayas, learned counsel for petitioner, is
absolute and moderate.
5. The learned District Judge, Udgir, is requested to conclude the
proceedings in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.11 of 2023 within a period of
six months from the date on which the parties place a copy of this order on
record.
6. In view of this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
7. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not commented on the merits of the
case of either sides.
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
Kiran Kawre
Checking your session…