Bombay High Court
RAMESHWAR BHIMRAO TALEKAR AND ANR.versusRESHMA RAJENDRA PISAL AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Rejected
Holding
The trial court did not err in granting the limited stay under its inherent powers, and the order is upheld.
Summary
The petitioners, who are the original defendants, challenged a stay order granted by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Karmala, which protected the plaintiffs' right to appeal and barred the defendants from constructing a road until March 25, 2026. The plaintiffs had filed an application under Order XLI Rule 5(2), Order XLIII Rule 2 and Section 151 of the CPC seeking a temporary injunction and status quo. The trial court, after hearing both sides, granted a limited stay to facilitate the filing of the appeal, invoking its inherent powers. The petitioners argued that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction and misused Section 151. The High Court, after hearing counsel, held that the stay was a protective, time‑bound measure serving the ends of justice and that no error was made by the trial court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as being without merit.
Issues considered
- The trial court’s jurisdiction to grant a stay under Section 151 of the CPC
- The propriety of using inherent powers to issue a temporary injunction pending appeal
- Whether the stay order exceeds the limits of law and is a legal error
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure — s. 151, Order XLIII Rule 2, Order XLI Rule 5(2)
Subjects
- temporary injunction
- stay order
- inherent powers
- Section 151 CPC
- Article 227
- civil procedure
- jurisdiction
Judgment
905-WP-1217-2026 (C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1217 OF 2026
Rameshwar Bhimrao Talekar And Anr.
VERSUS
Reshma Rajendra Pisal And Ors.
...
Mr. Shardul Diwan, Advocate for Petitioners.
...
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 18th MARCH, 2026.
P. C. :
1. The Petitioners raise an exception to the order rendered by
the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Karmala dated 4th March,
2026 below Exhibit 28, by which the interim protection is granted
till the appeal is presented and the said order will be in a vogue till
25th March, 2026.
2. The petitioners herein are the original defendants while the
respondents are the original plaintiffs. The plaintiff preferred an
application under Order XLI, Rule 5(2), Order XLIII Rule 2 and
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to
as “CPC”) seeking temporary injunction to the effect that the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e. Petitioners herein should not construct
Digitally
SAJAKALI
signed by
SAJAKALI
LIYAKAT
any road till the filing of the appeal and prayed for status quo.
LIYAKAT JAMADAR
JAMADAR Date:
2026.03.25
19:30:41
+0530
Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 3
905-WP-1217-2026 (C).doc
3. The learned trial Court after hearing litigating sides and
considering the material on record noted that the plaintiffs had a
statutory right to present an appeal against its order and to meet the
ends of justice as well as to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings,
passed the order under challenge, thereby granting stay to its order
passed below Exhibit-5 till 25.03.2026. Raising an exception to the
same, the Petitioners/Defendants have approached this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the order
under challenge is bad in law and that the trial Court has exceeded
its jurisdiction and wrongly exercised the inherent powers of the
Court under Section 151 of the CPC.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners at length
and upon perusal of the order indicates that the trial Court without
prejudice to the parties has passed the order under challenge.
Pertinently, the stay so granted is confined only till 25.03.2026,
which would facilitate the plaintiff to file an appeal against the
order passed below Exhibit-5. Thus, the said order is a protective
measure granted to the plaintiff only till filing of the appeal and the
same is confined to a particular period and in any case is aimed to
Sajakali Jamadar 2 of 3
905-WP-1217-2026 (C).doc
subserve the ends of justice. As such, the contention of the
Petitioners that the order under challenge is unsustainable cannot
be accepted.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that no error has
been committed by the concerned Court while exercising discretion
and allowing the Application.
7. Resultantly, the Petition sans merit and the same is dismissed.
[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.]
Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 3
Checking your session…