Bombay High Court
SMT. QUTUBUNISSA ABDUL RAB ANSARIversusBHIWANDI NIZAMPURA CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BHIWANDI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- GAURI GODSE
Holding
The observations in the impugned order are limited to the decision on interim relief and do not prejudice the trial court's determination of the suit, so the petition is disposed without interference.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order that dismissed her application for interim relief in a suit seeking a prohibitory injunction against demolition of her premises. The trial court had denied a temporary injunction on 9 April 2014, and the first appellate court affirmed that dismissal on 30 September 2016, directing the trial court to expedite the suit. The petition remained pending since 2017 with no interim protection granted. The High Court, exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227, found no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It clarified that the observations in that order were confined to the interim relief application and should not influence the trial court’s decision on the merits of the suit. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the stated clarification.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the order dismissing the application for interim relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Whether the observations in the impugned order affect the trial court's adjudication of the substantive suit for injunction
Subjects
- interim relief
- injunction
- Article 227
- discretionary jurisdiction
- writ petition
- temporary injunction
- demolition
- trial court
Judgment
20-wp-7794-2017.doc
varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7794 OF 2017
Smt. Qutubunissa Abdul Rab Ansari … Petitioner
vs.
Bhiwandi Nizampura City Municipal … Respondent
Corporation, Bhiwandi through its
Commissioner
Digitally
signed by
VARSHA
VARSHA VIJAY
Ms. Gauratna Kale i/b. Mr. Sachin Dhakephalkar for the Petitioner.
VIJAY RAJGURU
RAJGURU Date:
2026.03.05
14:55:34
+0530
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATED : 4th MARCH 2026
ORDER:
1. This petition is filed by the original plaintiff to challenge the
order dismissing her application for interim relief during the
pendency of the suit. The suit is filed for simplicitor injunction
restraining the respondent from demolishing the suit premises
without following due process of law. Pending this suit, the
application for grant of a temporary injunction was dismissed on 9 th
April 2014. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal on 30 th
September 2016. While dismissing the appeal, the trial court was
directed to expedite the hearing of the suit.
2. This petition has remained pending since 2017. Till date,
Page no. 1 of 2
20-wp-7794-2017.doc
there has never been any interim protection granted to the plaintiff. I
see no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the exercise of
the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is
posted for final hearing. She therefore submits that it be clarified
that the suit be decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by the
observations in the impugned order.
4. It is clarified that the observations in the impugned order are
prima facie, restricted to the decision on the application for interim
relief. Hence, the trial court shall decide the suit in accordance with
the law uninfluenced by the prima facie observations in the
impugned orders.
5. The writ petition is disposed of subject to the aforesaid
clarifications.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
Page no. 2 of 2
Checking your session…