Bombay High Court

CHANDRASHEKHAR VISHNU WALKARversusVILAS DINAKAR PADHYE AND ORS

Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SHAILESH P BRAHME

Holding

The trial court shall preemptively decide both the application for temporary injunction and the application for valuation to determine pecuniary jurisdiction.

Summary

The petitioner, Chandrashekhar Vishnu Walkar, challenged an order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Devgad, alleging that the court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a summary suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act because of an improper valuation of the subject matter. The petitioner filed an application (Exhibit‑16) to determine the valuation, which remains pending, and argued that no interim injunction should be entertained until jurisdiction is settled. The respondents contended that a separate application for a temporary injunction (Exhibit‑5) is pending and that the petitioner has not filed a reply to contest it. The High Court, applying Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, directed the trial court to hear and decide both Exhibit‑5 and Exhibit‑16 simultaneously, allowing parties to file replies, and set a two‑month deadline for completion. The writ petition was disposed of without overturning the impugned order.

Issues considered

Whether the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Devgad has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a summary suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act due to the valuation of the subject matter.
Whether the trial court should decide the application for temporary injunction (Exhibit‑5) before the jurisdictional valuation is determined.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure — s. Order VII Rule 10
Specific Relief Act — s. 6

Subjects

pecuniary jurisdiction
Specific Relief Act
summary suit
temporary injunction
Civil Procedure Code
jurisdictional valuation

Judgment

                                                     44-WP-2428-2026 (C).doc




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 2428 OF 2026

Chandrashekhar Vishnu Walkar                                       ...Petitioner
       Versus
Vilas Dinakar Padhye And Ors.                                  ...Respondents

                                  …..
Adv. Ashish A. Loke, Advocate for Petitioner.
Adv. Kaustubh Marathe a/w Adv. Mihir Mondkar, Advocate for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
                                  …..

                                     CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                     DATE     : 22nd JUNE, 2026.

P.C. :

           Heard Mr. Loke, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Mr.

Kaustubh Marathe, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and

2, who are the original plaintiffs and contesting parties.

2.         Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.2026 passed below

Exhibit-1 in RCS No.51 of 2026, the defendant has knocked the door of

this Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that learned Civil Judge,

Junior Division, Devgad, Dist. Sindhudurg, does not have jurisdiction to

entertain summary suit preferred under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act

due to the improper valuation of the subject matter. Accordingly, the

petitioner has already filed the application Exhibit-16 for determining



     ZIP                                                               1 of 2
                                                    44-WP-2428-2026 (C).doc


the valuation to decide the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, which is

pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless the

issue of pecuniary jurisdiction is determined, no application for interim

injunction or otherwise should be entertained. The impugned order

postpones the decision on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction.

3.         Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2

submits that the application Exhibit-5 for temporary injunction is

awaiting decision and the petitioner has not even preferred a reply to

contest the application.

4.         The defendant has undertaken the procedure contemplated by

the Order VII Rule 10 of CPC by preferring application Exhibit 16. The

application Exhibit-5 is awaiting judicial order. The ends of the justice

would be met by directing the Trial Court to decide both the

application, preemptorily. Trial Court shall decide the applications

Exhibit 5 as well as Exhibit 16 by hearing the parties.

5.         Parties would be at liberty to file their reply and make

submissions.

6.         This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months

from today.

7.         The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms without

upsetting the impugned order.


                                                [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME]




     ZIP                                                              2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…