Bombay High Court

MOHD. UMAR MOHD. SULEMAN AND ORS.versusANJUMAN TAHEZEEBUL AKHLAQUE AND ORS.

Decided: 9 September 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The Court held that there was no illegality or perversity in the trial and district courts' orders, and a writ petition by only three plaintiffs could not be entertained to allow withdrawal of the deposited amount.

Summary

The petitioners, three of the original plaintiffs, filed a writ petition challenging a district court's refusal to allow them to withdraw an amount deposited by the defendants pending the final hearing of the suit. The trial court had permitted the defendants to deposit the arrears of rent under protest, directing that the amount remain in court until the suit is decided. The petitioners argued that, since the suit was at the final hearing stage, they should be allowed to withdraw the amount. The High Court noted that only three of the original plaintiffs filed the revision and writ, with no explanation for excluding the others, and found no illegality or perversity in the lower courts' discretionary orders. Consequently, the Court rejected the writ petition, holding there was no ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition filed by only three of the original plaintiffs can be entertained to permit withdrawal of an amount deposited by the defendants pending suit resolution.
Whether the district court's refusal to grant relief constitutes illegality or perversity warranting interference under Article 227.
Whether the omission of other original plaintiffs from the revision application affects the petition's viability.

Subjects

revision
withdrawal of deposited amount
court discretion
Article 227
civil procedure
writ petition

Judgment

                                                             22-WP-5554-2018.docx


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 5554 OF 2018
Swapnil



          Mohd. Umar Mohd. Suleman and Ors.                  …Petitioners
               Vs.
          Anjuman Tahezeebul Akhlaque and Ors.               …Respondents



          Mr. Narayan R. Bubna a/w. Mr. Aryanraj A. A. for the
          petitioners.


                                   CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                   DATE :       9th SEPTEMBER 2026

          ORDER :


          1.    This writ petition is filed by three of the original plaintiffs

          to challenge the order passed by the District Court rejecting

          their revision application for permission to withdraw the

          amount deposited by the defendants in the trial court. The

          trial court has allowed the application filed by the defendants

          to deposit the arrears of the rent without prejudice to their

          rights and contentions. The said application was allowed by

          the trial court with a specific direction that the plaintiffs are

          precluded from withdrawing the said amount till the decision


                                          1/3
                                                 22-WP-5554-2018.docx


of the suit. Aggrieved by the said directions the present

petitioners had filed the revision application before the

District Court. However, the District Court has refused to

grant any relief for withdrawing the amount.


2.    Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit

is now at the stage of final hearing. Hence, the petitioners be

permitted to withdraw the amount.


3.    From the record it appears that out of the total original

plaintiffs, only three of the original plaintiffs have filed the

revision application and the present writ petition. There is no

explanation for not adding the other original plaintiffs as

parties to the revision application and the writ petition.


4.     The District Court has recorded that the amount was

permitted to be deposited under protest. Hence, there was a

direction that the amount shall remain deposited in the court.

In view of the findings recorded by the trial court permitting

deposit under protest, I see no reason to entertain this writ

petition only at the behest of three of the original plaintiffs.

There is no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and

permit only these petitioners to withdraw the amount. There

is no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the

                               2/3
                                                   22-WP-5554-2018.docx


trial court and the District Court warranting any interference

in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227

of the Constitution of India.


5.    The writ petition, is therefore, rejected.




                                            [GAURI GODSE, J.]




                                3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…