Bombay High Court
MRS. PRAMILA LAXMAN BHOSALEversusMR. RAJKUMAR DEBU DEOKULE AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- GAURI GODSE
Holding
An interlocutory order rejecting the appointment of a DILR as Court Commissioner is not amenable to immediate writ relief and must be challenged in an appeal against the final decree under Section 105 of the CPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Pramila Laxman Bhosale, filed a writ petition challenging the trial court's order rejecting her application for appointing a District Inspector of Land Records (DILR) as Court Commissioner. The High Court noted that the petitioner's notice was returned unserved and no parties appeared. The Court observed that the impugned order was merely interlocutory and did not cause prejudice, and that interference with such orders falls within the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It further held that under Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the order could be contested in an appeal against the final decree if the decree is adverse. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, leaving the parties' rights and contentions in the underlying suit untouched.
Issues considered
- The trial court's order rejecting the appointment of a DILR as Court Commissioner is an interlocutory order that can be challenged under Article 227.
- Whether the petitioner can obtain immediate relief through a writ petition or must wait for an appeal under Section 105 of the CPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 105
- Constitution of India — s. Article 227
Subjects
- interlocutory order
- Article 227
- Section 105 CPC
- court commissioner
- appeal jurisdiction
- writ petition
Judgment
3-WP-12551-2015.docx
rrpillai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12551 OF 2015
Mrs. Pramila Laxman Bhosale … Petitioner
Vs.
Mr. Rajkumar Debu Dekule … Respondents
None for the Petitioner.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE : 8th JANUARY 2026
ORDER :
1. Pursuant to order dated 23rd September 2025 notice
was issued to the petitioner. As per office remark dated 7 th
January 2026 court notice issued to the petitioner is returned
unserved with remark ‘not staying at given address’. None
appears for the parties in the matter.
2. The petition is filed by the original plaintiff to challenge
the order passed by the trial court rejecting the application for
appointing DILR as Court Commissioner.
3. The impugned order is purely an interlocutory order. No
prejudice is caused to the petitioner. It is always open to the
Digitally
signed by petitioner to lead his independent evidence.
RAJESHWARI
RAJESHWARI RAMESH
RAMESH PILLAI
PILLAI Date: 1/2
2026.01.09
10:37:57
+0530
3-WP-12551-2015.docx
4. 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 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 petitioner.
5. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the petition is
dismissed while keeping rights and contentions of the
parties in the suit open.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
2/2
Checking your session…