Bombay High Court

M/S. RAJ BUILDERSversusMRS. RAZIA GULAMHUSSAIN ARSIWALA AND ORS.

Decided: 6 October 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that both motions should be heard and decided simultaneously to ensure procedural efficiency.

Summary

The applicant, M/s. Raj Builders, filed a civil revision challenging an order of the City Civil Court that the motion for interim relief (Notice of Motion No.2415/2026) should be decided before the motion seeking rejection of the plaint (Notice of Motion No.2724/2026). The applicant argued that the rejection motion had already been heard and reserved, and that both motions should be decided together to avoid unnecessary interim orders if the plaint were to be rejected. The High Court noted that the interim relief motion was ready for hearing on 8 October 2026 and that a simultaneous hearing would be more efficient. Consequently, the Court directed the lower court to hear and decide both motions on the same day. The revision application was therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the order directing the interim relief motion to be decided before the motion for rejection of the plaint is procedurally proper.
Whether the two motions should be heard and decided simultaneously.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11

Subjects

civil procedure
interim relief
rejection of plaint
simultaneous hearing
CPC Order VII Rule 11
revision

Judgment

                                                                     17-CRA530-2026.DOC

                                                                                    Santosh

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                             CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 530 OF 2026

                      M/s. Raj Builders                                       ...Applicant
                                      Versus
                      Razia Gulamhussain Arsiwala And Ors               …Respondents

                      Mr., Dhaval Shethia, a/w Nikita Ghungharde, Sanhita Chaure,
SANTOSH                     i/b Dhiren Shah, for the Applicant.
SUBHASH               Mr. Anuj Narula, a/w Rehana M., i/b Jhangiani Narula &
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
                            Asso., for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.10.07
15:00:46 +0530
                      Mr. Santosh Mali, for Respondent Nos.4 to 9 – BMC.
                      Mr. Priyank Ganesh Chudasam, for Respondent Nos.10 to 16.

                                                     CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                     DATED : 6th OCTOBER, 2026

                      Oral Order:-

                      1.   Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

                      2.   The challenge in this application is to an order dated 19 th

                      September, 2026, whereby the learned Judge, City Civil Court,

                      has ruled that Notice of Motion No.2415/2026 in LC Suit

                      No.1471/2026    seeking   interim/ad-interim   relief    would    be

                      decided first in point of time and the decision on the Notice of

                      Motion No.2724/2026 seeking rejection of the plaint under the

                      provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

                      1908, would stand deferred.




                                                    1/3
                                                    17-CRA530-2026.DOC

3.    The grievance of the applicant – defendant is that the

hearing on the Notice of Motion No.2724/2026 for rejection of

the plaint was concluded on 17 th September, 2026. On that day,

an application for ad-interim/interim relief was filed on behalf of

the plaintiff.   Initially, the learned Judge had adjourned the

Notice of Motion No.2724/2026 to 19th September, 2026 for

passing orders. However, by the impugned order, the learned

Judge directed that Notice of Motion No.2415/2026 seeking

interim/ad-interim relief shall be decided first.

4.    Since the Notice of Motion for rejection of the plaint has

been heard and reserved for orders, if the learned Judge, having

regard to the circumstances of the case, was of the view that the

application for interim/ad-interim relief was required to be

heard and decided, the proper course would have been to hear

and   decide     the   said    Notice    of   Motion   No.2415/2026

simultaneously with the application for rejection of the plaint. A

simultaneous decision on the applications would obviate the

necessity for the determination of the application for interim

relief, should the Court come to the conclusion that the plaint is

required to be rejected.

5.    This     Court   is     informed    that   Notice   of   Motion

No.2415/2026 is ripe for hearing, as pleadings in the said Notice

                                  2/3
                                                 17-CRA530-2026.DOC

of Motion are complete, and it is now posted for hearing on 8 th

October, 2026.

6.   In     these   circumstances,   this    Court   considers    it

appropriate to request the learned Judge, City Civil Court, to

hear Notice of Motion No.2415/2026 positively on 8 th October,

2026 and pass the orders on Notice of Motion No.2724/2026 for

rejection of the plaint and Notice of Motion No.2415/2026 for

interim/ad-interim relief simultaneously as expeditiously as

possible.

7.   The application stands disposed.

                                            [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                               3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Dhaval Shethia