Bombay High Court
MANISHA MANESH RATHODversusRAMCHANDRA MANGO RATHOD
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the trial court to determine the pending civil suit on its merits and preserving interim protection, thereby allowing the petitioner to seek fresh leave to appeal after the civil suit concludes.
Summary
Manisha Manesh Rathod filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of her application for leave to appeal in a 2022 order, arguing that her pending Special Civil Suit No.125 of 2021 seeking a declaration of her status as the adopted daughter of the deceased gave her a direct interest in the matter. The respondent contended that the petitioner had not produced any documentary proof of adoption and therefore lacked standing. The Court noted Section 4 of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, which permits suspension of proceedings when a related civil suit is pending, and recalled its earlier interim order staying the grant of an heirship certificate. Accordingly, the Court directed the trial court to decide the substantive civil suit within one year, maintaining the interim protection, and held that the petitioner may file a fresh leave‑to‑appeal application after the civil suit is finally decided. The writ petition was disposed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's application for leave to appeal was erroneous given the pendency of a substantive civil suit.
- Whether the petitioner possessed locus standi to challenge the decree without prima facie proof of adoption.
- Whether Section 4 of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 authorises suspension of the appellate proceedings pending adjudication of the civil suit.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 — s. Section 4
Subjects
- writ petition
- leave to appeal
- locus standi
- adoption
- heirship certificate
- interim protection
- suspension of proceedings
- Bombay Regulation VIII
- civil suit
- declaration of legal status
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:9994
93 WP No.3627.2023
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3627 OF 2023
MANISHA MANESH RATHOD
VERSUS
RAMCHANDRA MANGO RATHOD
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Girish S. Rane
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Harshal P. Randhir
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Date : 4th March, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Heard learned counsel for respective sides.
2. The petitioner raises an exception to the judgment and
order date 28.11.2022 passed by the Ad-Hoc District Judge - 2, Jalgaon
below Exh. 1 in R.C.A. No. 59 of 2022, whereby the leave to appeal
filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Girish S. Rane
submits that the petitioner has already instituted Special Civil Suit No.
125 of 2021 before the competent Civil Court, seeking a declaration of
her legal status and rights. It is contended that since the petitioner’s
civil rights are under adjudication in a substantive suit, she possesses a
93 WP No.3627.2023
-2-
direct interest in the outcome of the connected proceedings. Therefore,
the learned Appellate Court erred in dismissing her application for leave
to appeal, as such a rejection prematurely forecloses her right to
challenge an order that affects her legal standing.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr.
Harshal P. Randhir submits that the petitioner’s claim of being the
adopted daughter of the deceased is entirely unsubstantiated. It is
argued that no documentary evidence was placed before the Trial Court
or this Court to prima facie establish such a relationship. Consequently,
the learned Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the application for
leave to appeal, as no person can challenge a decree without proving a
legitimate legal interest in the estate.
5. Upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on
record, the Court observes that Section 4 of the Bombay Regulation VIII
of 1827, provides that if a question at issue between parties is of a
complicated or difficult nature, the Court may suspend proceedings for
a certificate until the question has been adjudicated by a regular civil
suit. In the present case, the petitioner has already instituted a
substantive civil suit which is currently pending. Taking note of the
same, this Court had previously granted interim protection on
93 WP No.3627.2023
-3-
30.03.2023, staying the proceedings for the grant of an heirship
certificate in favour of the respondent.
6. In light of the pending civil suit, I am inclined to dispose of
the present petition by directing the Trial Court to decide the
substantive suit on its own merits. To preserve the rights of the parties
during this period, the interim protection granted earlier shall remain in
force and effect until the final decision of the Trial Court. Given that the
suit was instituted in the year 2021, the Trial Court is further directed
to conclude the proceedings and pass a final judgment within a strict
period of one year from today. Upon the final adjudication of the civil
suit, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh application for leave
to appeal or seek further relief based on the Civil Court's findings.
7. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed
of. No order as to costs.
8. Pending civil applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Omkar Joshi
Checking your session…