Bombay High Court

AMADI ABDURAB MULLAversusMANIRAM RAMKISHORE VARMA AND ORS

Decided: 29 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The High Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Article 227 to review the district court's order.

Summary

The petitioner, Amadi Abdurab Mulla, challenged a District Judge's order dismissing an appeal against a trial court's refusal to grant a status‑quo order during the pendency of a suit. The High Court examined whether it could entertain the writ petition under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Finding that the order was merely procedural and that a considerable time had elapsed since the suit’s institution, the Court held it lacked propriety to intervene. However, acknowledging the petitioner’s pending application for a temporary injunction, the Court directed the Civil Judge to hear and decide that application expeditiously, preferably within four months. The petition was consequently disposed.

Issues considered

What is the scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in reviewing a district court's dismissal of an appeal?
Whether the High Court should grant a status‑quo order during the pendency of the suit in view of the elapsed time.

Subjects

Article 227
supervisory jurisdiction
status quo
temporary injunction
civil appellate jurisdiction
petition disposal

Judgment

                                                                               17-WP-10397-2026.DOC




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 10397 OF 2026


                      Amadi Abdurab Mulla                                            ..Petitioner
                           Versus
                      Maniram Ramkishore Varma and Ors                          …Respondents


                      Mr. Sachin R Pawar, for the Petitioner.

ARUN                                                CORAM:          N. J. JAMADAR, J.
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
                                                    DATE :          29th AUGUST 2026
Digitally signed by
ARUN RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.09.02
10:16:06 +0530



                      P.C.:

                      1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

                      2.      The challenge in this Petition is to a judgment and order dated 5 th

                      August 2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Mangaon, Raigad,

                      whereby the Appeal preferred against an order passed by the Trial Court

                      declining to grant status-quo during the pendency of the suit, came to

                      be dismissed.

                      3.      Having regard to the nature of the order and especially the time

                      lag since the institution of the suit, this Court does not find any

                      propriety in entertaining the Petition in exercise of its supervisory

                      jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.




                      ARS                                     1/2
                                                        17-WP-10397-2026.DOC

4.     However, since a grievance is made on behalf of the Petitioner

that, the Application for temporary injunction filed by the Petitioner-

Plaintiff awaits adjudication, the Petition stands disposed with a request

to the Civil Judge to hear and decide the Application for temporary

injunction filed on behalf of the Petitioner, as expeditiously as possible,

and, preferably within a period of four months from the communication

of this order.

5.     Petition disposed.



                                             [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




ARS                                   2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…