Petitioners challenged an Executing Court order directing them to execute a sale deed under a pending first appeal. The High Court held that as no stay was sought in the appeal despite pendency, the Executing Court acted correctly.
Petition dismissed; Rule discharged; No costs to either party.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP-204-2024
Maria S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.27 OF 2019 Converted to WRIT PETITION NO.204 OF 2024.
.... Petitioners.
Versus
Page 1 of 6
22nd February, 2024
WP-204-2024
.. Respondents.
Mr. E. O. Mendes, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Vallabh D. Pangam, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
CORAM: VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J. DATED: 22nd February 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Leave granted to convert the Civil Revision Application No.27/2019 to a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Registry may register this petition as a Writ Petition.
Page 2 of 6
22nd February, 2024
WP-204-2024
a) Respondent No.1 was the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.47/2009/A filed before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Vascoda-Gama who had obtained a decree dated 04.05.2013. The decree directed defendants no.1, 2 and 3 who are the present petitioners to execute a deed of conveyance transferring title to Flat No.102, admeasuring 143 sq. mts along with a stilt parking area of 15 sq. mts in Murgao Avenue, at Vasco, and to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises upon payment of the balance consideration of ₹10,00,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendants. In addition, the decree directed the defendants no.1 and 2 to pay the plaintiff damages at the rate of ₹25,000/- per month from 10.01.2009 till delivery of possession of the flat.
b) The above-referred execution proceedings were filed by the respondent No. 1 decree holder on 01.07.2013 to execute the decree seeking the Executing Court’s assistance for registering a draft deed
Page 3 of 6
22nd February, 2024
WP-204-2024
of sale submitted by the decree-holder. In addition, the execution proceedings sought recovery of the amounts directed by the decree of the trial Court. It appears from the record that no objections were filed by the judgment debtor under Section 47 CPC.
c) Instead, the judgment debtor/original plaintiff filed First Appeal No.15/2022 before this Court impugning the decree; however, in this Appeal, though interim relief was sought seeking a stay of the decree and execution proceedings, the same has not been pressed for till date.
d) Instead, the defendants/judgment debtors opposed the execution proceedings by contesting an application at Exhibit D-53 of the execution proceedings, in which the decree-holder sought the Court’s order to accept a draft sale deed submitted by it and further directions to the judgment debtor to execute the deed of sale in performance of the part of the decree which directs execution of sale deed for the suit premises.
e) The impugned order dated 11.04.2019 has rejected these objections and directed the judgment debtor to execute the sale deed in terms of the draft submitted by the decree-holder.
Page 4 of 6
22nd February, 2024
WP-204-2024
Supporting the impugned order, respondents have contended that the objections are not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioners, though served in 2013 have been consistently seeking time to file a reply to the execution proceedings but no objections have been forthcoming. The respondents contend that there is no cause for interference with the impugned order in view of the narrow jurisdiction in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution.
Page 5 of 6
22nd February, 2024
WP-204-2024
of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 11.04.2019 which has been correctly passed. There is no infirmity that can be seen in the impugned order either in terms of the procedure followed by the Executing Court or in the exercise of its jurisdiction in an execution proceeding.
VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J
MARIA SUZANA REBELLO
Digitally signed by MARIA SUZANA REBELLO Date: 2024.02.23 13:14:17 +05'30'
Page 6 of 6
22nd February, 2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Executing Court was justified in ordering execution of a decree despite the pendency of a first appeal filed by the judgment debtors.
Whether the petitioners were entitled to raise objections under Section 47 CPC after a lapse of time without pressing a stay application during pending appellate proceedings.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Maria S.
Mr Shaikh Maksood Moosa
Mrs. Shaikh Zahira
Mr. Shaikh Hussain Sheikh Moosa (L.R)
Anil Maruti Sawant
Shaik Zain
VALMIKI SA MENEZES
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
