Bombay High Court
SAU. PUSHPA ANIL BANSODEversusSAU REKHA SANJAY KATARE AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- GAURI GODSE
Holding
Interlocutory orders of this nature are not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 227 and must be challenged in an appeal under Section 105 of the CPC.
Summary
The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to set aside a trial court order that rejected their application for the appointment of a Court Commissioner. They argued that the order, though interlocutory, affected their rights and should be reviewable under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court observed that courts are generally reluctant to interfere with interlocutory orders and that such orders can be challenged only in an appeal against the final decree under Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, but the court kept the parties' substantive rights and contentions in the underlying suit open for determination. The decision underscores the limited scope of writ jurisdiction over interlocutory orders and the availability of statutory appeal remedies.
Issues considered
- Whether an interlocutory order rejecting an application for appointment of a Court Commissioner is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 bars a writ petition and provides the exclusive remedy of an appeal against the decree.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 105
Subjects
- interlocutory order
- writ jurisdiction
- Article 227
- Section 105 CPC
- Court Commissioner
- appeal
- civil procedure
Judgment
14-wp-1886-2017.doc
varsha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1886 OF 2017
Sau. Pushpa Anil Bansode … Petitioner
vs.
Sau Rekha Sanjay Katare and Ors … Respondents
Mr. Nikhil M. Pujari i/b. P.N. Joshi for Petitioner
Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh a/w. Mr. Aniket Kanawade a/w. Mr. Aryan
Deshmukh for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATED : 24th MARCH 2026
ORDER:
1. This petition is filed by the plaintiffs to challenge the order
Digitally
signed by
VARSHA
VARSHA VIJAY
passed by the trial court rejecting their application for appointment
VIJAY RAJGURU
RAJGURU Date:
2026.03.25
14:53:40
+0530
of the Court Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the suit has proceeded and it is at the stage of
recording evidence. The impugned order is purely an interlocutory
order which in no manner affects the rights of the parties..
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
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) the impugned order can
Page no. 1 of 2
14-wp-1886-2017.doc
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.
3. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the petition is
dismissed while keeping rights and contentions of the parties in the
suit open.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
Page no. 2 of 2
Checking your session…