Bombay High Court
SHANTA UTTAM JANTRE ALIAS SHANTA VITHAL BHANDAREversusANWAR ISLAM SHAIKH ( DELETED) AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
The court may dispose of a petition for temporary injunction by accepting a binding undertaking from the respondent to provide equivalent premises during the pendency of the suit.
Summary
The petitioner, Shanta Uttam Jantre, appealed against the dismissal of his miscellaneous appeal and the trial court’s rejection of his application for a temporary injunction concerning premises involved in RAD Suit No. 979 of 2015. The High Court examined whether the petitioner had a prima facie case for such an injunction and found none, but recognized the need to protect his interests pending the outcome of the suit. The court accepted an undertaking from Respondent No. 2, who, on his client’s instruction, promised to provide premises of equivalent size to the petitioner during the pendency of the suit, either in the same building or a nearby one. This undertaking was recorded as a binding statement to the court. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without granting an injunction, relying on the respondent’s undertaking to safeguard the petitioner’s position.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy when a temporary injunction is not warranted but the petitioner’s interests need protection during the pendency of a suit?
Subjects
- temporary injunction
- undertaking
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- premises
- RAD suit
- petition disposal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:15216
Renuka 7-WP-16989-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16989 OF 2025
Shanta Uttam Jantre @ Shanta Vithal ...Petitioner
Bhandare
V/s.
Anwar Islam Shaikh ( Deleted) and ...Respondent
Anr.
________________
Mr. Rajesh Kachare with Ms. Kashvi Anil for Petitioner.
Mr. Sahil Ansari for Respondent No. 2.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 27 MARCH 2026.
P.C.:
1) The Petition challenges order dated 23 September 2025
passed by Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court dismissing
miscellaneous Appeal preferred by the Petitioner and conBrming Trial
Court’s order dated 23 January 2025. By its order dated 23 January 2025
the Trial Court has rejected Application at Exh-42 for temporary
injunction.
2) After going through the Bndings in the impugned orders in
my view no prima facie case is made out by Petitioner for grant of
Page No.1 of 2
27 March 2026
Renuka 7-WP-16989-2025
temporary injunction. However, at the same time, some arrangement
needs to be made during pendency of the suit so as to ensure that
Petitioner would be in position to secure some premises in lieu of the
suit premises, if he succeeds in the suit.
3) At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No. 2, on instructions of his client, who is personally present
before the Court, makes a statement that in the event the Petitioner
succeeds in RAD Suit No. 979 of 2015, Respondent No. 2 shall make
available to the Petitioner premises of equivalent size as that of suit
premises either in the same building or in some other building in the
vicinity. Statement is accepted as undertaking given to the Court. The
statement shall operate during pendency of RAD Suit No. 979 of 2015.
Recording the statement made above, the Petition is accordingly
disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
Page No.2 of 2
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 27 March 2026
Date: 30/03/2026 21:13:35
Checking your session…