Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 1309
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Girishbhai Natwarlal Patel – Appellant
Versus
Gautam Punjabhai Palkhiwala (Dead) By Lrs & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 14017-14018 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 29178-29179 of 2024]
Decided On : 30-10-2026
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anshin H Desai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv. Ms. Venu Nanavaty, Adv. Ms. Shalini Singh, Adv. For M/s Aura & Co.- 2040, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mihir J. Thakor, Sr. Adv. Ms. Megha Jani, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR Mr. Arjun Joshi, Adv. Mr. Pranay Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Pragya Jaishwal, Adv.
JUDGMENT
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.:
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:
INDEX
| A. | PROCEDURAL BACKDROP OF THE MATTER |
| B. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES (ALONG WITH THEIR CORRESPONDING FACTUAL MATRIX) |
| (i) | Submissions on behalf of the Appellant |
| (ii) | Submissions on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 |
| C. | ISSUES |
| D. | ANALYSIS |
| (i) | Whether the ex parte ad interim injunction granted vide impugned Oral order dated 02.04.2024, restraining the appellant from dealing with the subject land, and in continuing the same by judgement and order dated 14.08.2024 is sustainable in law : |
| (ii) | Whether leave to appeal could have been granted to the original applicants/Respondent nos. 1-9, considering that they were not parties to the original suit which culminated in the consent decree sought to be appealed against? |
| a. | Whether a stranger to a consent decree can maintain an appeal under Section 96 r/w Order XXIII Rule 3 & Rule 3A of the CPC, 1908? |
| b. | Principles governing the grant of leave to appeal: |
| (iii) | Whether the condonation of delay of 11 years was valid? |
| E. | CONCLUSION |
1. Leave granted.
2. Since the issues raised in the above captioned appeals are the same, the parties are also same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
A. PROCEDURAL BACKDROP OF THE MATTER:
3. The present appeals arise from (i) the Order dated 02.04.2024 in C.A. No. 1408/2024 whereby the High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction against the appellant herein; and (ii) the Judgment dated 14.08.2024 passed in C.A. No. 1408/2024 with C.A. No. 1608/2024 in F/First Appeal No. 7226 of 2024 whereby the High Court condoned a delay of 11 years and granted the Respondent Nos. 1-9 herein, Leave to Appeal against the consent decree dated 29.04.2013 passed in the Original Civil Suit No. 322 of 2012, instituted for specific performance of contract.
4. By the aforesaid ex parte ad interim order, the High Court restrained the appellant/Girish Natwarlal Patel, and any person acting on his behalf from entering upon the subject suit property and/or selling, transferring, mortgaging, leasing, creating third-party rights or encumbrances in respect thereof, or otherwise dealing with the property in any manner whatsoever, until the next date of hearing. The injunction was granted with a view to preventing multiplicity of proceedings pending the decision of the appeal.
5. As the appellant/Girish Natwarlal Patel was not a party to the proceedings at the time the aforesaid ex parte ad interim order was passed, the High Court Registry had issued him a writ of the Civil Application for Leave to Appeal, thereby informing him of the injunction granted against him. When the matter was next listed on 02.05.2024, an adjournment was granted at the request of Ms. Vanu Nanavaty, the learned counsel who stated that she had received instructions to appear on behalf of Girish Natwarlal Patel, but the interim relief granted earlier was ordered to be continued. On 18.8.2024, when the matter came up for hearing, the High Court asked the Registry to notify all Civil Applications and place them on file for hearing.
6. The matter was thereafter listed on 01.07.2024, 09.07.2024, 18.07.2024, 22.07.2024, respectively and heard inter partes, with the interim relief being continued in the meantime. The matter was eventually argued at length on 25.07.2024, when the parties advanced extensive submissions on the grant of ex parte ad interim relief, the condonation of delay and the application seeking leave to appeal, following which, it was reserved for orders.
7. On 31.07.2024, the matter was taken up again for clarification of certain aspects of the written submissions tendered by the lear
