Dismissed

Pradeep Gangaram Ghanekar v. Pramila Madhukar Bhavsar

Bombay HC25 Jan 2011WP/551/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by a judgment debtor challenging the executing court's refusal to appoint a commissioner for decree execution. The court held the execution court's view was correct as the decree could be executed based on existing property description.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected, no costs awarded. Decree execution remains as per executing court's order.

Pradeep Gangaram Ghanekar Vs Pramila Madhukar Bhavsar — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.: 551 OF 2011

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶5

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.: 551 OF 2011

¶7

***

¶8

1.Heard. The petitioner judgment debtor
filed application Exhibit-108 for appoint of
Commissioner, as according to him, decree
cannot be executed without his report. The
application was opposed by decree holder.
Executing Court has applied its mind in para
6 and 7 of the impugned order to note that
the decree can be executed on the basis of
description of property as given and
appointment of Commissioner is not necessary.

¶9

2.Learned counsel contends that this R.D.
No.298 of 2004 is to be tried with Regular
Civil Suit NO.108 of 2006 as per orders of
Principal District Judge dated 31st July,
2010. However, during hearing, it has been
pointed out that there was temporary
injunction earlier operating in that suit
prohibiting execution of decree and that was
lateron vacated.

¶10

¶11

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO.: 551 OF 2011

¶14

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders.

¶15

3.IN this background, I do not find
anything wrong with the view taken by the
executing Court. No case is made out
warranting interference. Petition is

¶16

rejected. No costs.

¶17

[B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.]

¶18

Dated:25/01/2011.
ans/551

Pradeep Gangaram Ghanekar v. Pramila Madhukar Bhavsar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Gangaram Ghanekar v. Pramila Madhukar Bhavsar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushila Shankar Khilari and Ors. Vs Sunita Nana Rohakale

Larsen and Tourbo Limited Vs Shrirang Laxman Lande

Yasin Ramjan (Pinjari)@ Munsuri. Vs Babasaheb Shankarrao Labade.

The Executive Engineer PWD Ahmednagar Vs Karbhari Narayan More

Tukaram Jayaji Bhavar and Anr. Vs Babu Jayaji Bhavar and Anr.

Narsana Dhondiba Kalme and Ors. Vs Chaya Vijaykumar Ugile and Ors.