Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SHREE KUTCHHI BHANUSHALI SEVA SAMAJ TRUST THR. ITS TRUSTEE DINESH CHANDRAversusABDUL SATTAR BIPAT KHAN

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The appellate court ordered the trial court to expeditiously determine the notice of motion, hear the intervenor, grant a rejoinder, and restrain coercive steps, thereby disposing of the appeal without prejudice to the merits.

Summary

The appellant, Abdul Sattar Bipat Khan, appealed an ad‑interim order issued by the trial court in a suit against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The trial court had acted on a show‑cause notice issued by the Corporation’s Designated Officer. The appellate court examined whether the trial court should consider the appellant’s material, determine the pending notice of motion, and hear an intervening landowner. It directed the trial court to decide the notice of motion within four weeks, to hear the intervenor, and to grant the appellant leave to file a rejoinder to the corporation’s affidavit. The court also ordered that no coercive steps be taken against the appellant’s structure for a week after any adverse final order, and disposed of the appeal without addressing the merits.

Issues considered

  • Whether an appellate court can direct a trial court to determine a pending notice of motion and consider intervenor evidence notwithstanding an ad‑interim order.
  • Whether a stay of coercive steps against the appellant’s property is appropriate pending final determination of the notice of motion.

Subjects

  • appellate jurisdiction
  • interim order
  • stay of execution
  • intervention
  • notice of motion
  • civil procedure

Judgment

                                                                     16. AO-19-2026.odt


Amberkar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                            APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 19 OF 2026
                                          WITH
                           INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 148 OF 2026
                                          WITH
                           INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 2026

           Abdul Sattar Bipat Khan                         .. Appellant
                      Versus
           The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
           & Anr.                                          .. Respondents
                                      ....................
            Mr. Abhinav Chandrachud a/w Mr. Rajkumar Awasthi i/by Mr.
              Manish Tomar, Advocates for Appellant
            Mr. Sachin Vajale, Advocates for Respondents
            Mr. Pradip Thorat a/w Mr. Aniesh Jadhav, Mr. Karan Gajra, Mr.
             Avinash Bailmare a/w Mr. Shubham B.Choudhar i/by Mr. Nikhil
             Adkine, Advocates for Intervener
                                         ...................
                                        CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                        DATE          : JANUARY 17, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Mr. Chandrachud, learned Advocate for Appellant; Mr.

           Vajale, learned Advocate for Respondents - Corporation and Mr.

           Thorat, learned Advocate for Intervener. It is mentioned at the time of

           discharging the Board due to apprehension expressed by the

           Appellant.     Mr. Thorat has appeared after the order is dictated in

           Court on behalf of the intervener - landowner. I have also heard him

           on his objections.




                                                                                 1 of 3
                                                          16. AO-19-2026.odt


2.    Challenge in the present Appeal from Order (AO) is to the ad-

interim order passed by the learned Trial Court pursuant to the

issuance of show-cause-notice and speaking order passed by the

Designated Officer of the Corporation. Suit proceeding has been filed.

It is prima facie seen that the material which is produced by Appellant

- Org. Plaintiff is required to be considered by the learned Trial Court

in accordance with law. Considering that impugned order is an ad-

interim order and Notice of Motion is pending final hearing, the

learned Trial Court is directed to determine the Notice of Motion and

pass appropriate reasoned speaking order after considering the case of

Plaintiff and Corporation. Learned Trial Court shall also hear the

landowner who has filed Chamber Summons seeking intervention in

the Suit while deciding the Notice of Motion. Learned Trial Court is

directed to decide the Notice of Motion as expeditiously as possible

and in any event within a period of four weeks from today. Leave to

file rejoinder is granted to the Plaintiff to the affidavit in reply of the

Corporation.


3.    Learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the

observations made in the impugned order and accordingly determine

the same.


4.    In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the

structure of the Appellant and further for a period of one week after

                                                                      2 of 3
                                                                      16. AO-19-2026.odt


           passing of the final order in the Notice of Motion if the said order is

           adverse to the Plaintiff.


           5.           Without expressing any opinion on merits, present Appeal from

           Order stands disposed of in the above terms.                Both Interim

           Applications are also disposed.



Amberkar                                             [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
                      Digitally signed
                      by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
                    AMBERKAR
           MOHAN    Date:
           AMBERKAR 2026.01.17
                      16:35:44
                      +0530




                                                                                  3 of 3


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

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