Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

MURTUZA ALI ACHWA AND OTHERSversusSANA MUINUDDIN ACHWA AND ANOTHER

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The appellate court affirmed that the interim application sought final reliefs and could not be entertained as interlocutory relief, but allowed the parties to convert it into a notice of motion for final hearing.

Summary

The appellants appealed against an order of the City Civil Court at Mazgaon which rejected their interim reliefs on the ground that the reliefs sought were essentially final reliefs and that the interim application should be converted into a notice of motion under the City Civil Rules. The High Court examined whether the trial court was correct in treating the interim application as a final claim and whether procedural compliance was required. It held that the trial court's view was correct and did not interfere with its order. However, the Court permitted the appellants to pursue the matter by converting the interim application into a notice of motion and directed the defendants to file a reply affidavit within four weeks. The appeal was dismissed without costs and all contentions before the lower court were kept open for final determination.

Issues considered

  • Whether the interim reliefs sought constitute final reliefs and therefore cannot be granted as interlocutory relief.
  • Whether the interim application must be converted into a notice of motion under the City Civil Rules before being entertained.

Subjects

  • interim relief
  • final relief
  • interlocutory relief
  • notice of motion
  • City Civil Court
  • procedural law
  • appeal

Judgment

          Digitally signed
PRASHANT by PRASHANT
         VILAS RANE
VILAS    Date:
RANE     2026.09.22
          11:27:07 +0530
                                                                                                      5COMAO-12-24.DOC



                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          COMMERCIAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 12 OF 2024

                             Murtuza Ali Achwa And Others                       ...Appellants
                                   Versus
                             Sana Muinuddin Achwa And Another                   ...Respondents
                                                              _______
                             Ms. Sarah Samuel with Ms. Hemali Merva i/b. Nedumpara & Nedumpara, for
                             the Appellants.
                             Mr. Som Singh with Neelesha Padavi, for Defendant No.1.
                                                             _________
                                                                   CORAM:          G. S. KULKARNI &
                                                                                   Dr.NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

                                                                   DATE:           10 SEPTEMBER 2026.

                             P.C.

                             1.         We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs on the present

                             appeal, which challenges an order dated 10 May 2024 passed by the learned

                             Judge, City Civil Court at Mazgaon, Mumbai, whereby the learned Trial Judge

                             has observed that the ad-interim reliefs sought in the Interim Application in

                             question cannot be granted, as they are in the nature of final reliefs in the suit. It is

                             also observed that no case is made out for grant of any ad-interim relief, and

                             accordingly the prayers for ad-interim reliefs were rejected. The impugned order

                             also observes that the Interim Application seeking such interlocutory reliefs in the

                             suit is required to be converted into a Notice of Motion as per the City Civil

                             Rules.

                             2.         Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that prayer for ad-interim

                             reliefs were required to be taken into consideration and the reliefs ought to have


                                                                   Page 1 of 2
                                                               10 September 2026
                             P.V.Rane
                                                                         5COMAO-12-24.DOC



been granted.

3.         We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, as we find that

the principal reliefs prayed for in the suit are also the reliefs prayed for in the

Interim Application to such extent the impugned order cannot be faulted.

4.         We, however, dispose of this appeal by permitting the appellants/plaintiffs

to pursue the final hearing of the Interim Application in question, if the same is

now converted in a Notice of Motion. If such Notice of Motion is pending

adjudication for the final reliefs as prayed for, let the same be decided in

accordance with law after granting an opportunity to the defendants to file their

reply affidavit to the Interim Application, if not already filed, which be filed

within a period of four weeks from today, without any plea for further extension.

5.         All contentions of the parties before the City Civil Court are expressly kept

open.

6.         Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.




(Dr.NEELA GOKHALE, J.)                                      (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)




                                       Page 2 of 2
                                   10 September 2026
P.V.Rane


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.