Dismissed

Shashikala Suresh Gargade v. Appa Baburao Sanap and Others

Bombay HC17 Feb 2017WP/1159/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging an execution order, the Bombay High Court held that no limitation arose as the decree holder sought satisfaction via possession or payment. The petition was dismissed with costs, but interim relief was extended for two weeks to enable challenge.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with costs; interim relief continued for two weeks to enable challenge to this order.

Shashikala Suresh Gargade Vs Appa Baburao Sanap and… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

( 1 ) wp1159.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1159 OF 2016

¶4

`Shas`	`hikala Suresh Gargade`	`..` `Petitioner`
`Age.`	`65 years, Occ. Agri.,`
`R/o.` `At p` `Esta` `Aura`	`Ashti, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed` `resent residing at Zambad` `te, Ganga Apartment, Flat No.A,` `ngabad.`
	`Versus`
`1.`	`Appa s/o. Baburao Sanap` `Age. 50 years, Occ. Agri.,`	`..` `Respondents`
`2.`	`Kalyan s/o. Baburao Sanap` `Age. 45 years, Occ.Agri.,`
`3.`	`Ambadas s/o. Baburao Sanap` `Age. 40 years, Occ. Agri.,`
`4.`	`Raghunath s/o. Baburao Sanap` `Age. 36 years, Occ. Agri.,` `All R/o. Savargaon, Tq. Patoda,` `Dist. Beed.`
`Mr.N` `None`	`.L. Jadhav, Advocate for the pet` `for the respondents.`	`itioner.`
	`CORAM :` `DATED :`	`S.B. SHUKRE,J.` `17.02.2017`

¶5

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶6

1.Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally as this Court had already indicated while
re-issuing notice that the matter shall be disposed of
finally.

¶7

2. None for the respondents.

¶8

3.Although, the question of limitation has been
raised by the petitioner/decree holder, I do not see it
as arising in this case. No doubt, the judgment debtors
have made prayer to the executing Court for permitting
them to deposit Rs.13,000/- in satisfaction of decree
after expiry of period of about 12 years. The execution
proceedings themselves were filed before the expiry of
period of 12 years and in the execution petition, the
decree holder prayed for delivery of possession of the
share or alternatively for payment of Rs.13,000/- to be
made to her by the judgment debtors. So, the prayer of
decree holder itself is that the decree holder would be
satisfied in either of the two ways indicated in the
execution petition and this being so, no fault would be
found with the approach of the judgment debtors in saying
that they would be paying Rs.13,000/- in satisfaction of
the decree.

¶9

4.Viewed in this way, I do not see any merit in
the petition. The writ petition is dismissed with costs.
Rule discharged.

¶10

5.The interim relief granted earlier is continued
for a period of two weeks from the date of this judgment
to enable the decree holder to challenge order of this
Court.

¶11

snk/2017/FEB17/ wp1159.16

Shashikala Suresh Gargade v. Appa Baburao Sanap and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikala Suresh Gargade v. Appa Baburao Sanap and Others

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

Ankita Alok Agnihotri Vs Ramesh Natharam Ghodke Patil

Rameshwar Venkoba Kakade and Anr. Vs Smt Sidwabai Narsu Kakade

Anirudh Namdeo Dudile Vs Sopan Nivrutti Dudile and Others

Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Mustaq and Others Vs Shaikh Abdul Naseem Abdul Razzak and Others

Ashrinath Natha Satre and Another Vs Vaishali Baban Satre and Others

Bhanudas Eknath Jadhav and Others Vs Anil Dilipkumar Patni and Others