Kishan Bhima Jadhav vs. Adil Dadibai Driver And Others

Held

The High Court held that the appellant had not made out a case for interference with the order passed by the City Civil Court. The Court was of the prima facie opinion that both the notice of motion and the suit filed by the appellant were thoroughly misconceived. The Court reasoned that if the appellant had any rights to assert, they should have been asserted in his capacity as an obstructionist to the decree before the executing Court, where he had already filed an application. Since that application was pending, pursuing a separate suit and notice of motion for injunction was considered inappropriate. Therefore, the appeal was rejected, and the order of the City Civil Court was upheld. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The appellant, Kishan Bhima Jadhav, filed an appeal against an order dated February 18, 2023, passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai. The City Civil Court had rejected the appellant's application for ad-interim relief on a notice of motion. The appellant had filed a suit seeking a perpetual prohibitory injunction to prevent the respondents from dispossessing him from the suit premises and from causing disturbance to his business. The appellant claimed to be a sub-tenant of respondent no. 3, who was a judgment debtor in a prior suit before the Small Causes Court at Mumbai. The appellant had previously filed an application as an obstructionist in the execution proceedings of that decree before the Small Causes Court but failed to obtain any ad-interim orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the City Civil Court erred in rejecting the appellant's application for ad-interim relief, thereby refusing to grant a temporary injunction against dispossession from the suit premises? Petitioner's arguments: The appellant argued that he was entitled to an ad-interim injunction to protect his possession of the suit premises and his business, as he was a sub-tenant. He sought to restrain the respondents from dispossessing him. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state. However, the Court's prima facie opinion suggests that the suit and the notice of motion were misconceived. The Court noted that any rights the appellant sought to assert should have been pursued in his capacity as an obstructionist in the execution proceedings before the Small Causes Court, where his application was pending.