Bombay High Court
THE TRUSTEES OF THE BAI SOONABAI HIRJI AGIARY TRUST AND ORS.versusMURLIMAL SANTRAM
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition challenging the interlocutory order is dismissed as the order is not amenable to writ jurisdiction and can be contested later in an appeal under Section 105 CPC.
Summary
The Trustees of the Bai Soonabai Hirji Agiary filed a writ petition challenging an interlocutory order of the trial court, which had been affirmed on revision, permitting the respondent, Murlimal Santram, to take certain documents on record as evidence. The petitioners argued that the order, though interlocutory, affected their rights and should be subject to judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court observed that interlocutory orders are generally not amenable to writ jurisdiction and that any grievance can be raised later in an appeal under Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if the final decree is adverse. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the order, noting that no prejudice was caused to the petitioners. The petition was dismissed while leaving the substantive rights and contentions in the underlying suit untouched.
Issues considered
- Whether an interlocutory order granting the respondent permission to take documents on record can be challenged by a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides an alternative remedy for challenging such interlocutory orders.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Section 105
- Constitution of India — s. Article 227
Subjects
- interlocutory order
- Article 227
- Section 105 CPC
- writ petition
- discretionary jurisdiction
- appeal against decree
Judgment
18-wp-12114-2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
varsha
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12114 OF 2018
The Trustees of the Bai Soonabai Hirji Agiary … Petitioners
Trust and Ors
vs.
Murlimal Santram … Respondent
Mr. Jamsheed Master a/w. Mr. Smith Barboz i/b. Mulla and Mulla
and Craigie Blunt and Caroe for the Petitioners.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATED : 30th SEPTEMBER 2026
Digitally
signed by
VARSHA
VARSHA VIJAY
VIJAY RAJGURU ORDER:
RAJGURU Date:
2026.10.01
11:41:07
+0530
1. This petition is by the original plaintiffs challenging the order
passed by the trial court and confirmed in the revision allowing the
defendant’s application for taking on record the documents in
evidence. This is purely an interlocutory order which in no manner
affects the rights of the parties. No prejudice is caused to the
petitioners.
2. Normally, court should be very slow in interfering with such an
interlocutory order in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India. Moreover, in view of Section 105 of the
Page no. 1 of 2
18-wp-12114-2018.doc
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) the impugned order can
always be challenged in an appeal against the decree which may be
passed in the suit, in the event the decree is adverse to the
petitioners.
3. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the petition is rejected
while keeping rights and contentions of the parties in the suit open.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
Page no. 2 of 2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.