Bombay High Court
Balu Keru MetkariversusMahadeo Keru Metkari Bergal
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that there was no propriety in entertaining the petitions at this juncture and disposed of them.
Summary
The petitioners Balu Keru Metkari and Alka Ankush Metkari challenged orders dated 1 August 2026 of the City Civil Court that appointed a Court Commissioner to inspect the suit property and submit a report in two related suits. The High Court noted that the Commissioner had already inspected the premises on 5 August 2026 and filed a report, and that without the site situation being brought before the Court, it could not properly consider an injunction. Consequently, the Court found no propriety in entertaining the writ petitions at this stage. The petitioners were advised that they could raise objections, including contesting the use of the Commissioner’s report, in the underlying suits. The High Court therefore disposed of both writ petitions.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court may entertain a writ petition challenging the appointment of a Court Commissioner without a site inspection before the Court.
- Whether the report of the Court Commissioner can be taken into consideration in further orders of the suits.
Subjects
- injunction
- court commissioner
- inspection report
- civil procedure
- writ petition
Judgment
13-14-WP-10242-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10242 OF 2026
Balu Keru Metkari ..Petitioner
Versus
Mahadeo Keru Metkari Bergal …Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10243 OF 2026
Alka Ankush Metkari ..Petitioner
Versus
Mahadeo Keru Metkari Bergal …Respondent
Mr. Sachin Hande, for the Petitioner in both Petitions.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 29th AUGUST 2026
P.C.:
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
SANKPAL
Digitally signed by
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
2. The challenge in these Petitions is to the orders dated 1st August
Date: 2026.08.31
15:04:43 +0530
2026 in Suit No. 0101231 of 2026 and Suit No. 0101230 of 2026
passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, whereby the Court
Commissioner was appointed to inspect the suit property and submit a
report.
ARS 1/2
13-14-WP-10242-2026.DOC
3. The learned Judge, City Civil Court was of the view that without
the situation at the site being brought before the Court, the Court would
not be in a position to appreciate the prayer for grant of injunction.
4. The Court Commissioner has already visited the subject premises
on 5th August 2026 and submitted a report to the Court.
5. Thus, at this juncture, there is no propriety in entertaining the
Petition.
6. The Petitioners shall have the right to raise all the objections,
including that the report of the Court Commissioner may not be taken
into consideration while passing the further orders in the suits.
7. Subject to the aforesaid clarification, Petitions stand disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
ARS 2/2
Checking your session…