Bombay High Court

MR. RAJAN PANDHRINATH AHIREversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF BRIHANMUMBAI AND ORS.

Decided: 28 January 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: GAURI GODSE

Holding

The interlocutory order is not amenable to interference under Article 227, and the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Swapnil Rajan Pandhrinath Ahire, filed a writ petition challenging a trial court order that rejected his application for framing additional issues. The order was characterized as an interlocutory order. The High Court examined whether such an interlocutory order could be interfered with under the discretionary jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court noted that ordinarily interlocutory orders are not subject to immediate interference and that any challenge should be made under Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure after the final decree. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court reserving the right to appeal under Section 105 if the final decree is adverse.

Issues considered

Whether an interlocutory order rejecting an application for framing additional issues can be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Whether the petitioner should instead rely on the remedy provided under Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 105
Constitution of India — s. Article 227

Subjects

interlocutory order
Article 227
Section 105 CPC
writ petition
civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:2619

                                                                28-WP-8146-2016.docx


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
     Swapnil                WRIT PETITION NO. 8146 OF 2016
               Rajan Pandhrinath Ahire                   …     Petitioner
                    Vs.
               The Municipal Corporation Of
               Brihanmumbai and Ors.                     …     Respondents


               None for the petitioner.
               Mr. Santosh Mali for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

                                          CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                          DATE :     28th JANUARY 2026

               ORDER :


               1.    None for the petitioners.


               2.    This petition is filed by the original defendant no.4 to

               challenge the order passed by the trial court rejecting his

               application for framing additional issues.


               3.    The impugned order is purely an interlocutory order.

               Normally, the court should be slow in interfering with such

               interlocutory order. In view of Section 105 of the Code of

               Criminal Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) it will always be open for

               the petitioner to challenge the impugned order in an appeal,

               in the event the final decree is adverse to the petitioner.

                                               1/2
                                                28-WP-8146-2016.docx


4.    Hence, this is not a case to interfere with the impugned

order in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article

227 of the Constitution of India


5.    Subject to the aforesaid observations, and reserving

the right under Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

the petition is dismissed.




                                           [GAURI GODSE, J.]




                               2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…