Bombay High Court
CHANDRAKANT RANGRAO KHARADE AND ORSversusRAMCHANDRA DADU INGAVALE AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the status‑quo order must remain in force until the civil suit is disposed and directed the trial court to decide the suit expeditiously, within six months.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking continuation of the status‑quo order that was earlier granted by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 546/2015, where an interim injunction had been awarded. The trial court had later been unable to maintain the injunction, and the lower appellate court had affirmed the trial court’s refusal to grant a fresh temporary injunction. The petitioners argued that the suit should be decided expeditiously and that the status‑quo should remain in force. The respondents contended that both courts had already decided against the petitioners and warned against any advantage being taken of the status‑quo. The High Court directed the trial court to decide the civil suit as soon as possible, not later than six months from the order, and ordered that the status‑quo remain in effect until disposal of the suit, rejecting any claim of equity against it.
Issues considered
- Whether the status‑quo order should be continued pending disposal of the civil suit
- Whether the trial court should be directed to decide the civil suit within a specified time frame
- Whether equity can be invoked to set aside the status‑quo order
Subjects
- status quo
- interim injunction
- civil suit
- expeditious disposal
- equity
- writ petition
Judgment
65 WP 9454 OF 2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
65 WRIT PETITION NO. 9454 OF 2019
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1687 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 9454 OF 2019
CHANDRAKANT RANGRAO KHARADE AND ORS
VERSUS
RAMCHANDRA DADU INGAVALE AND ORS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam a/w Adv. Rushikesh Desai
a/w Adv. Tejashri Kanase
Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Umesh Hanmantrao Pawar
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 20.08.2026
PER COURT :
Heard both sides.
2. It is pointed out by learned counsel Mr. Nikam that when the matter
was before the Trial Court, ad interim injunction was in operation. The Trial
Court rejected application for temporary injunction, which is confirmed by
the Lower Appellate Court in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 35/2018. The writ
petition is arising out of Regular Civil Suit No. 546/2015 preferred by the
petitioners. He would request that the order of status quo, which was in
operation in the present matter also, albeit for initial period, be continued
further and the suit be directed to be decided expeditiously.
3. Learned counsel for respondents submits that both Courts
concurrently decided against the petitioners. They are likely to take
disadvantage of the orders passed by this Court. It is further informed that
another Regular Civil Suit No. 554/2015 between the same parties is also
1/2
65 WP 9454 OF 2019.odt
pending.
4. The petitioners have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 546/2015, which is
yet to be decided by the Trial Court. The petitioners were granted ad
interim injunction by the Trial Court. This Court granted status quo vide
order dated 27.08.2019. It was continued for some period, but later on
could not be continued for the reasons which cannot be attributed to the
parties. The suit has not been progressed much. Instead of deciding the
applications for temporary injunction, it would be appropriate to direct the
Trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously.
5. Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to
decide Regular Civil Suit No. 546/2015, as expeditiously as possible, and in
any case not beyond six months from today.
6. There shall be order of status quo till disposal of the suit. No equity
can be claimed due to the orders of status quo.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)
mkd/-
2/2
Checking your session…