Disposed

Gayaji Subhaji Bhosale (Decd) and Ors. v. Mrs. Chitra Pratapsinh Bhosale and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Feb 2014WP/8172/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition by decree holders complaining of undue delay in executing a decree. It directed the Trial Judge to prioritize and dispose of the pending execution application within six months.

What did the court decide?

The Trial Judge shall give priority to dispose of Regular Darkhast No.35 of 1985 within six months from the receipt of this order.

Gayaji Subhaji Bhosale (Decd) and Ors. Vs Mrs… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

2013-8172

¶2

vsp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8172 OF 2013

¶5

Gayaji Subhaji Bhosale (deceased) and Ors.

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

vs.

¶8

Mrs.Chitra Pratapsinh Bhosale

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr.K.P.Shah, Advocate for the Petitioners

¶11

CORAM : A. S. OKA & M. S. SONAK, JJ. 6TH FEBRUARY 2014

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners.

¶14

2] The Petitioners are the decree holders. The grievance made in this Petition is that, the execution application filed in the year 1985 has not made any progress and therefore, the Petitioners are deprived of the fruits of the decree. It is pointed out that the decree sought to be executed was confirmed on 10^th October,1997, when the appeal against the decree was dismissed by the District Court.

1/4

2013-8172

vsp

3] The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that as per the knowledge of the Petitioners, only one proceeding is pending in this Court arising out of the decree subject matter of execution. Said proceeding is C.R.A.No.635 of 2012. He states that W.P.No.6773 of 2012 is already disposed of. On instructions, he states that in C.R.A.No.635 of 2012, there is no stay granted by this Court of the execution proceeding.

¶19

4] We had called for a report of the learned Trial Judge on the progress made in the matter. We have perused the report of the learned judge. He has set out the manner in which the execution application is proceeded. He has referred to the direction of this Court to give priority to the disposal of 5 years and 10 years old suits. He has set out several reasons for the delay.

¶20

5] Normally this Court would be very slow in issuing directions to the Trial Court for disposing of pending proceeding in a time bound manner.

¶21

6] However, looking to the fact that, the decree

2/4

2013-8172

vsp

sought to be executed, has been confirmed on 10^th October,1997, appropriate direction will have to be issued.

¶26

7] Considering the report of the learned Judge, we find that this is not a case where there is any default on the part of the learned Judge. We are satisfied with the reasons recorded by the learned Judge in his report. However, considering the facts of the case, this is a fit case where the learned Judge will have to give priority for the disposal of the execution application.

¶27

8] We therefore, dispose of the Petition by passing the following order:

¶28

a) The report of the learned Judge shall be kept in the custody of the Registrar(Judicial-1) in a sealed envelope;

¶29

b) Copies of the report shall not made available to any party without prior permission of this Court;

¶30

c) If there is no stay granted to the execution application, the Trial Judge shall give necessary priority for disposal of Regular Darkhast No.35

3/4

2013-8172

vsp

of 1985 and shall dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the writ of this order.

¶35

9] If the learned Judge finds that any of the parties to the execution application are not cooperating for the disposal, he shall submit a report in that behalf to this Court. As soon as such report is received, this Petition along with report shall be kept before the proper Court for directions.

¶36

10] Petition is disposed of on above terms.

¶37

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶38

4/4

Gayaji Subhaji Bhosale (Decd) and Ors. v. Mrs. Chitra Pratapsinh Bhosale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gayaji Subhaji Bhosale (Decd) and Ors. v. Mrs. Chitra Pratapsinh Bhosale and Ors.

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

Maharashtra Krishna Valley Vs Vithu Balu Hajam and Ors.

Dhondu Dadunath Gosavi (Since Decd, through Legal Heirs) Shri. Kacharu Dhondu Gosavi and Anr. Vs the Deputy Collector (Acquisition), Vaiterna Jal Vidyut Project, Nashik and Ors.

Shri. Prakash Punjaji Tidke and Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation, Nashik and Ors.

Shri. Nandkumar Vasant Deshpande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Mr. Ratan Manoranjan Uma Bose Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

M/S. a. a. Auctioneers and Contractors Private Limited Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation Maharashtra Limited and Anr.