Bombay High Court

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND ORS.versusMAIRE VENKATRAMANA NAYAK AND ORS.

Decided: 7 October 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The order is interlocutory and not subject to writ jurisdiction; the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, the Union of India and others, filed a writ petition challenging a trial court’s order that rejected their application to frame additional issues in the underlying suit. The High Court examined whether such an interlocutory order could be subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It held that the order was purely interlocutory, did not affect the parties’ rights, and caused no prejudice, therefore it is not appropriate for writ intervention. The Court further noted that, under Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the order can be contested only in an appeal against the final decree if that decree is adverse. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed while leaving the substantive rights and contentions in the suit open.

Issues considered

Whether an interlocutory order rejecting an application for framing additional issues is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Whether such an order can be challenged only by filing an appeal 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
writ jurisdiction
Article 227
Section 105 CPC
framing of issues
appeal
civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:40907

                                                              26-WP-907-2020.docx


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 907 OF 2020
   Swapnil
               Union Of India Through The Secretary
               and Ors.                                       …Petitioners
                    Vs.
               Maire Venkatramana Nayak and Ors.              …Respondents


               Mr. Ashish Mehta for the petitioners.

                                      CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                      DATE :       7th OCTOBER 2026

               ORDER :


               1.    This writ petition is filed by the original defendants to

               challenge the order passed by the trial court rejecting their

               application for framing additional issues.

               2.    The impugned order is purely an interlocutory order

               which in no manner affects the rights of the parties. No

               prejudice is caused to the petitioners.

               3.    Normally, court should be very slow in interfering with

               such an interlocutory order in its discretionary jurisdiction

               under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, in

               view of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

               (“CPC”) the impugned order can always be challenged in an

                                             1/2
                                                26-WP-907-2020.docx


appeal against the decree which may be passed in the suit,

in the event the decree is adverse to the petitioners.

4.    Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition

is rejected while keeping rights and contentions of the parties

in the suit open.

                                          [GAURI GODSE, J.]




                              2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Ashish Mehta