Bombay High Court
M/S. V. V. ENTERPRISES AND OTHERSversusSHREE MANDAR CO-OP.HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- MILIND N JADHAV
Holding
The appeal from Order No.392 of 2026 is disposed of with a direction to the District Judge, Kalyan, to dispose of Regular Civil Appeal No.25 of 2025 within six months, keeping all parties' contentions open.
Summary
The appellants, M/s. V. V. Enterprises and Ors, filed an appeal from Order No.392 of 2026 challenging a procedural order in Regular Civil Appeal No.25 of 2025 pending before the District Judge, Kalyan. They sought a time‑bound disposal of the appeal from order without any adjudication on the merits, arguing that the Supreme Court had already expedited the hearing of the underlying suit, which was dismissed in their favour. The Court noted that the regular civil appeal had resulted in a temporary injunction and that the appellate court’s order was merely a status‑quo direction, leaving all parties’ contentions open. It held that there was no justification for keeping the appeal from order pending and that the lower court should be directed to dispose of the regular civil appeal within six months. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the appeal from order and the pending interim application, directing the District Judge to dispose of the regular civil appeal within the stipulated period while keeping all contentions open.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal from an interlocutory order should be disposed of without addressing the merits of the underlying civil appeal
- Whether the lower court should be directed to dispose of the regular civil appeal within a specified time frame
Subjects
- appeal from order
- interim application
- time‑bound disposal
- status quo
- temporary injunction
- civil procedure
Judgment
61.AO.392.2026+.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.392 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3059 OF 2026
M/s. V. V. Enterprises And Ors .. Appellants
Versus
Shree Mandar Co-operative Housing Society
Limited .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Drupad Patil a/w. Mr. Suyash Sule, Advocates for Appellants.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : APRIL 23, 2026
P.C.:
1. Mentioned out of turn at the time of rising.
2. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Appellants.
3. The impugned order is passed below Exhibit-5 in Regular
Civil Appeal No.25 of 2025 by the learned Appeal Court. This is
subject matter of Appeal from Order before me.
4. Mr. Patil fairly in his usual fairmindedness persuades the
Court to make the Appeal time bound and dispose of the present
Appeal from Order without giving any imprimatur on merits. In
support of his submissions he would persuade the Court to consider
the fact that in so far as the suit before the learned Trial Court was
concerned, the Supreme Court expedited the hearing of the said Suit
pursuant to which the said Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court in
1 of 3
61.AO.392.2026+.doc
favour of the Appellant.
5. He would submit that the Plaintiff therefore filed Regular
Civil Appeal in which Plaintiff has been granted temporary injunction.
He would clarify that in the Regular Civil Appeal, the order granted by
the Appellate Court is that of status quo. He would submit that if
appropriate direction is passed for disposal of the Appeal on merits
within a time bound schedule and programme, it will not prejudice the
rights of the Plaintiff or that of any other party. He would therefore
persuade the Court to pass appropriate orders.
6. Mr. Patil is right in his contentions. There is no purpose in
keeping such an Appeal from Order pending in this Court. Appropriate
order is requested by Mr. Patil in the best interest of both the parties
who are before the Appellate Court which can be directed to dispose
of pending Regular Civil Appeal in a time bound manner.
7. Needless to state that this Court has not expressed any
imprimatur on the merits of the matter. All contentions of Plaintiff
who is before Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.25 of 2025
before the District Judge, Kalyan are expressly kept open.
8. In that view of the matter, present Appeal from Order stands
disposed with direction to the District Judge, Kalyan to dispose of
Regular Civil Appeal No.25 of 2025 within a period of six months from
today keeping all contentions of both the parties expressly open.
2 of 3
61.AO.392.2026+.doc
9. Since the Appeal from Order is disposed by this order, for the
purpose of information and intimation of original Plaintiff, copy of this
order and Appeal from Order shall be served on Plaintiff by Advocate
for Appellant – Defendant before me.
10. With the above directions, Appeal from Order is disposed. In
view of disposal of Appeal from Order, pending Interim Application is
also disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.04.23
19:51:23 +0530
3 of 3
Checking your session…