Bombay High Court

M/S. AARTI COMPANY PARTNERSHIP FIRM THOU PART VALLABH RADHAKISAN KARWAversusSHRI. ANIL MALLESHPA GORE AND ANR

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The writ petition is disposed of, and the trial court is directed to decide the suit on its merits within eight months.

Summary

M/s. Aarti Company Partnership Firm, through its partner, filed a writ petition challenging a lower court order dated 22‑08‑2022 that rejected an application filed under Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent, Anil Malleshpa Gore, asserted that he does not intend to alienate the disputed properties, a position reiterated by his counsel in court. The High Court noted that a related Special Civil Suit No. 183 of 2016 remains pending and therefore the matter requires swift resolution. The Court accepted the respondent’s statement and directed the trial court to decide the suit on its merits expeditiously, preferably within eight months. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the order rejecting the application under Order VIII Rule 5 of the CPC is maintainable.
Whether the respondent's declaration of not alienating the properties can be accepted for the purpose of the writ petition.
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the pending suit.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure — s. Order VIII Rule 5

Subjects

Writ petition
Order VIII Rule 5
Code of Civil Procedure
Property alienation
Expeditious trial
Special Civil Suit

Judgment

2026:BHC-KOL:8675

1 55.WP-6709-2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 6709 OF 2024

M/s. Aarti Company Partnership
Firm Through Partner
Vallabh Radhakisan Karwa ...Petitioner

VERSUS

Shri. Anil Malleshpa Gore and
another ...Respondents

Shri Anand S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Suhas S. Inamdar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 08TH SEPTEMBER, 2026.

FINAL ORDER :

. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner – original plaintiff is challenging order dated
22.08.2022 passed below Exhibit 10 rejecting application
preferred under Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. It
reveals from record that while replying application Exhibit 10 by
the respondent No. 1, categorical statements have been made
that the respondent No. 1 is not intending to alienate the
properties. It is reiterated by the learned counsel appearing for
2 55.WP-6709-2024.odt

the respondent No. 1 on instructions of the respondent No. 1, who
is present in the Court that except properties which are already
alienated, the properties which are referred in para No. 21 of the
impugned order and upon which charge is created would not be
alienated.

4. In view of the fact that Spl. C. S. No. 183 of 2016 is still
pending, it would be appropriate to expedite the suit.

5. The writ petition is disposed of and the statement made by
the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 on instructions can
be accepted. The Trial Court shall decide the suit on its own
merits, expeditiously and preferably within a period of eight (08)
months from today.

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]

bsb/Sept. 26

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…