The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that procedural irregularities undermining a party’s right to be heard necessitate an immediate stay of impugned orders, even at the admission stage. This ruling reinforces the foundational principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done through fair process.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The Sunshine Tower Members Association filed a Notice of Motion seeking an ad-interim injunction against respondents, who are residents of the housing society, regarding alleged violations of maintenance payment norms. The respondents opposed the motion, citing a prior judgment in Suit No. 67 of 2018 which mandated strict compliance with maintenance charges and utility service payments.
Procedural History
The trial court passed an order on 22 January 2026 disposing of the Notice of Motion in full, despite:
- Refusing to allow the respondents to file an Affidavit-in-Reply
- Recording the respondents’ oral objections in paragraph 10 but failing to consider them substantively
- Disposing of the motion on internal pages 6 and 7 without addressing the legal and factual grounds raised
Relief Sought
The appellant sought a stay of the impugned order pending disposal of the appeal, arguing that the denial of opportunity to file a written reply violated principles of natural justice and rendered the order procedurally flawed.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a civil court may dispose of a Notice of Motion in full without permitting a party to file an Affidavit-in-Reply, and whether such a procedural omission constitutes a sufficient ground for granting an interim stay pending appeal.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Mr. Siddhesh Bhole argued that the lower court’s refusal to permit the filing of an Affidavit-in-Reply violated natural justice and the right to be heard, which are guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. He relied on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das to assert that procedural fairness is not a technicality but a substantive right. He further contended that the court’s reliance on oral objections without affording a written opportunity to respond rendered the order unsustainable.
For the Respondent
The respondents did not file written submissions prior to the hearing. However, their oral opposition, as recorded in paragraph 10 of the impugned order, referenced the binding precedent in Suit No. 67 of 2018. No formal legal argument was advanced to justify the denial of the Affidavit-in-Reply or the summary disposal of the motion.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the procedural posture of the case and found that the order under challenge was fundamentally defective. The trial court had noted the respondents’ objections but failed to consider them in any meaningful way. The refusal to allow an Affidavit-in-Reply, particularly when the respondents had raised a prior judicial precedent as a defense, amounted to a denial of a fair opportunity to be heard.
"It is settled law that the right to file an Affidavit-in-Reply is not a privilege but a procedural right essential to the adversarial system. Denial of this right, especially when the matter involves a prior binding judgment, renders the order vulnerable to being set aside."
The Court emphasized that the order was not merely an ad-interim order but was fully disposed of on internal pages, effectively terminating the matter without affording due process. The Court held that such a procedural lapse creates a prima facie case of prejudice, warranting an interim stay. The Court further noted that the appeal would be decided at the admission stage, indicating that the irregularity was so apparent that no further evidence was required to grant relief.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The Bombay High Court held that denial of the right to file an Affidavit-in-Reply constitutes a violation of natural justice, and where such a breach is established, an interim stay must be granted pending appeal. The impugned order was stayed until the appeal is decided.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must insist on the filing of Affidavits-in-Reply in all civil motions, even where oral submissions are recorded
- Courts cannot dispose of motions summarily if a party has sought to file a written reply
- Failure to permit such filings renders orders liable to be set aside on appeal
Prior Judgments Must Be Considered, Not Just Cited
- When a party invokes a binding precedent as a defense, the court must engage with it substantively
- Mere mention of a prior judgment in an order, without analysis, is insufficient and may constitute reversible error
- Advocates should flag such omissions as grounds for stay or appeal
Stay Is Not Discretionary When Natural Justice Is Breached
- An interim stay is not merely a matter of convenience - it is a remedy mandated by constitutional principles
- Courts must grant stays automatically when procedural rights are denied, even at the admission stage
- This ruling eliminates ambiguity: procedural fairness overrides procedural economy
