Ratlam Homeowner’s Temporary Injunction Remains in 18-Metre Road Dispute as MP HC Rejects Corporation’s Appeal After Late Review Filing

The trial Court granted Meena Wadhwani a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC on 27 September 2025 concerning her house, which the Municipal Corporation alleged obstructed construction of an 18-metre-wide road.

The Corporation did not appeal within the stated 30-day period. It filed a review application on 17 December 2025, withdrew it on 26 March 2026, and filed an appeal with an application for condonation of delay on 28 March 2026.

The appellate Court rejected the condonation application and dismissed the appeal on 17 April 2026. The Corporation challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits a delayed appeal to be admitted where sufficient cause for the delay is established.

An appeal from an order granting or refusing an injunction is provided for under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC; the judgment states that the appeal was required to be filed within 30 days.

Article 227 of the Constitution was invoked to challenge the appellate Court’s order.

The Court held that the appeal period expired on 26 October 2025, but the Corporation filed neither an appeal nor a review application by then. The review application, filed on 17 December 2025, was itself out of time; its filing therefore did not provide a sufficient explanation for the delay in appealing, particularly when the appeal was not filed until 28 March 2026.

The road-construction claim did not justify interference: the trial Court had found that the Corporation had placed no material establishing the required road width or the extent to which the respondent’s house obstructed the project, and the High Court found no basis to disturb those findings.

The Corporation remained at liberty to apply to the trial Court with material showing the area required for the proposed road, for consideration in accordance with law.