Bombay High Court
PRAKASH KEHERIRAM AGARWAL AND ORSversusRADHIKA A MITHA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
No clarification is required as the priority application has been withdrawn, and the Co‑operative Court may independently decide whether to hear the petitioners on the temporary injunction application.
Summary
The petitioners sought clarification of a prior order that had recorded their willingness to withdraw certain applications and allowed the Co-operative Court to hear a temporary injunction application expeditiously. They contended that their own application for impleadment had not been heard and that the Co-operative Court was proceeding without giving them a hearing. The court examined the procedural history, noting that the disputed priority applications (Exhibit‑30) had been withdrawn by the respondents, rendering any priority issue moot. It held that the impleadment application was never part of the priority dispute and therefore no clarification of the earlier order was required. Consequently, the court left it to the Co‑operative Court to decide whether the petitioners should be heard on the temporary injunction application and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should issue a clarification to the order dated 28 August 2026 regarding the hearing of the petitioners' impleadment application.
- Whether the withdrawal of the priority application (Exhibit‑30) by the respondents eliminates the need to decide on the priority of the petitioners' impleadment application.
Subjects
- writ petition
- clarification
- temporary injunction
- impleadment
- priority of applications
- Co‑operative Court
- Civil Procedure Code
- procedural law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:38440
k 1/4 15 wp 12500.26 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.12500 OF 2026
Prakash Keheriram Agarwal & Ors. ....Petitioners
V/S
Radhika K. Mitha & Ors. ....Respondents
_________
Mr. Bharat Gadhavi with Mr. Aniket Shitole and Ms. Trushna Shah and
Mr. Sarvesh Deshpande for the Petitioners.
__________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 21 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1. The Petition is filed seeking a clarification in respect of order
dated 28 August 2026 passed in Writ Petition No.10875 of 2026. By that
order, this Court merely recorded a statement on behalf of Petitioners
therein (Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) that they no longer wish to
press decision of applications at Exhibits-22 and 27 on a priority basis.
This Court accordingly clarified that the Co-operative Court would be
free to take up application for temporary injunction at Exhibit-5 for
decision in an expeditious manner.
2. Petitioners contend that they have filed an application for
intervention in the pending dispute. They complain that without hearing
their application for impleadment, the Co-operative Court is proceeding
ahead to decide the application for temporary injunction at Exhibit-5 on
katkam Page No. 1 of 4
k 2/4 15 wp 12500.26 as.doc
account of order passed by this Court on 28 August 2026. Petitioners
desire that they also need to be heard when application for temporary
injunction is decided by the Co-operative Court.
3. The purpose of filing Writ Petition No.10875 of 2026 needs to be
understood. It appears that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Disputants had
filed three applications as under:
(i) Application at Exhibit-5 for seeking temporary injunction;
(ii) Application at Exhibit 22 seeking "no say/no written statement"
order against the Opponent; and
(iii) Application at Exhibit-27 for judgment under Order VIII, Rule 10
and Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Disputants were advised to file
application at Exhibit-30 for decision of priority in respect of the
pending applications. On application preferred by Respondent Nos.1 and
2 at Exhibit 30, the Trial Court decided the priority as under:
“(1) Maintainability application;
(2) Third-party application; and
(3) Application under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.”
5. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 got aggrieved by order dated 11
March 2026 and filed Revision before the Co-operative Appellate Court,
which was partly allowed by order dated 7 July 2026. The Appellate Court
katkam Page No. 2 of 4
k 3/4 15 wp 12500.26 as.doc
set aside the order dated 11 March 2026 passed by the Co-operative
Court and remanded the application at Exhibit-30 for fresh
consideration.
6. It is these orders dated 11 March 2026 as revised by the Appellate
Court on 7 July 2026 which became subject matter of the challenge in
Writ Petition No.10875 of 2026. When the Petition came up for hearing
before this Court, the Petitioners therein (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2)
showed willingness to withdraw the Application at Exhibit-30. Thus, the
very basis for passing order dated 11 March 2026 by the Co-operative
Court and order dated 7 July 2026 by the Co-operative Appellate Court
was itself withdrawn by Respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is on account of this
desire expressed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 that this Court disposed of
Writ Petition No.10875 of 26 by order dated 28 August 2026, leaving
open liberty to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to press Application at Exhibit 5
for temporary injunction.
7. From the above discussion, it is clear that the Application for
impleadment filed by the Petitioners was not even subject matter of
Application at Exhibit-30. Even though the Trial Court did mix up the
impleadment application of Petitioners while deciding the priority vide
order dated 11 March 2026, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 never applied
for decision of priority in respect of impleadment application filed by the
Petitioners. Since the Application at Exhibit-30 itself is withdrawn by
Respondent Nos.1 and 2, there is no occasion for the Trial Court to
decide the priority in respect of any of the pending Applications.
katkam Page No. 3 of 4
k 4/4 15 wp 12500.26 as.doc
8. In my view, therefore, it is not necessary to issue any clarification
in the order dated 28 August 2026. It would be open for the Co-operative
Court to decide as to whether present Petitioners need to be heard when
Application at Exhibit-5 filed by the Disputants is taken up for
consideration.
9. All contentions in that regard are specifically kept open. Writ
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
katkam
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Page No. 4 of 4
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/09/2026 20:11:11
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.