1) This Appeal assails the Order dated 6th July 2026, passed by the learned Single Judge in Interim Application No.1535 of 2026, directing the eviction of the Appellant No.2 and his son, without permitting them to file a reply to the Interim Application.
2) Mr. Narula, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants, submits that the Appellant No.2 (Defendant No.2) has been in possession of the premises since June-July 2012 on the basis of a leave and license Agreement with the co-owner of the property. He submits that as early as on 30th November 2013, the Defendant No.1 Company purchased 50% undivided share, right, title and interest in the suit property from the co-owner when the Appellant No.2 was the director of the Appellant No.1. Eight years later, in November-2021, the Respondent No.1 filed a Suit to inter alia challenge the conveyance and sought appointment of a Court Receiver. The Court Receiver came to be appointed in respect of the suit property on 4th January 2024. The Court Receiver’s report stated that the Appellant No.2 was residing on a second floor along with his son and daughter. Thereafter, in February 2026, the Respondent No.1 moved an Interim Application No.1535 of 2026, seeking eviction of the Appellants.
3) On 6th July 2026, the said Interim Application was listed for the first time. That day, a red alert was issued by the Government of Maharashtra in wake of incessant rains. The Appellants were represented by junior Advocate who informed the Court that, the Appellant No.2 had been in hospital for more than two weeks and was discharged only yesterday namely on 5th July 2026 and accordingly, sought two weeks to file reply to the Interim Application. Despite the request, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned Order and aggrieved by it, the Appellants have preferred the present Appeal.
4) Mr. Jayakar opposed the Appeal. While supporting the Order submitted that, the Appellants have been wrongfully withholding possession and they ought to have vacated the premises much earlier.
5) We have heard Mr. Narula, learned Advocate for the Appellants and Mr. Jayakar, learned Advocate for the Respondents and perused the record.
6) A closer examination of the impugned Order indicates that, the learned Single Judge had kept back the matter in the morning session as the Appellants sought time to obtain instructions as to when the Appellant and his son would vacate the two rooms bearing Nos.201 and 204 in the suit property. This was in the wake of the Court Receiver being appointed by this Court since 4th January 2024 and was directed to take forcible possession. It was only in view of an Appeal that was preferred that the Court Receiver had not taken forcible possession.
7) Evidently, the said Appeal has been withdrawn on 6th February 2026. Therefore, now there was no impediment for the Receiver to take possession if necessary with the assistance of the Police.
8) It is in this factual background that, the learned Single Judge observed that no purpose would be served by filing a reply to the said Interim Application. The impugned Order permits the reply to be filed within two weeks from the date of the Order i.e. by 20th July 2026 and had granted four weeks for the Appellants to vacate the property failing which the Police was directed to assist the Court Receiver to take forcible possession of the said two rooms bearing Nos.201 and 204 on the second floor of the suit property.
9) The record reveals that, earlier the learned single Judge had passed a detailed Order having considered the facts and circumstances of the case in its totality and had directed the appointment of Court Receiver on 4th January 2024. Despite the Order of the Court, the Appellant No.2 had refused to hand over the property as specifically recorded in the Order dated 26th March 2024 and had accordingly directed the Court Receiver to seek assistance from the local Police Station to take forcible possession of the said premises. Notably, the Order dated 28th March 2024, recorded that, the Court Receiver had received a communication from the Appellant that the Appellant was ready and willing to hand over the possession of the entire property but “under protest” and subject to the outcome of the Appeal instituted by him, which was scheduled to be listed on 5th April 2024, except the portion in his possession. It was on the basis of this communication that the Receiver was directed to implement the Order within a period of three weeks and file a Report in that regard. The Orders dated 1st July 2024, 27th August 2024 and 4th August 2025, clearly indicate that, the Appellants had not taken any steps to pursue the Appeal and later on 6th February 2026, the said Appeal was unconditionally withdrawn. It is thus apparent that, the conditional surrender of the entire suit property save and except the two rooms ceased to exist and as a consequence thereof, the Appellants were bound to hand over the possession of the said two rooms to the Respondent No.1. Even on merits, we find that, the Appellants would have no entitlement withholding the said two rooms and have willfully and deliberately continued to retain their possession for more than four months from the date of the withdrawal of the Appeal.
10) Thus, the Appellants have been unduly delaying vacating the said two rooms. We further find that the Appellants failed to vacate the said two premises on the ground that they had filed the Appeal on 15th July 2026. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge was entirely justified in passing the impugned Order.
11) The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Wander Ltd. v. Antox Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1990 Supp SCC 727, is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. This being an interlocutory Order, as the Appellate Court we are preempted from interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge or to substitute our own discretion, unless the Appellant demonstrates that the discretion used by the learned Single Judge has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or where the Court had ignored the settled principle of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions.
12) In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised his discretion after considering the entire record and the different Orders passed in the matter and has reasonably and judicially passed the impugned Order. We do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the same.
13) In Rakesh Kumar Goel and Ors. v UP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors reported in 2010 8 SCC 263 the Supreme Court held that the Court is not for manipulators and speculators and the litigation is not like buying a lottery ticket that, if luck favours, might bring a windfall (even though illegitimate) but would cost no more than the expenses of litigation.
14) In fact, we find that the present Appeal is an abuse of the process with a clear intent to delay the handing over the possession of the said property to the Respondent No.1.
14.1) We accordingly dismiss the Appeal with costs of Rs.1,00,000/-payable to the Respondent No.1 within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this Judgment on the official website of High Court, Mumbai.
15) In view of disposal of Appeal, Interim Application does not survive and is accordingly disposed off.
16) List the Appeal on board under the caption for “reporting compliance” on 3rd September 2026.
