Dismissed

Nagnath Vishvanath @ Vishambarsingh Rajput v. Dhondibai Arjunsingh Rathod and Another

Bombay HC8 Jan 2024WP/2113/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition challenging the rejection of an application seeking declaration that a decree was inexecutable. The High Court held that once execution is concluded and satisfied, such applications cannot be entertained; the remedy lies in filing a civil suit. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application Exh.53 is rejected. Writ Petition is dismissed.

Nagnath Vishvanath @ Vishambarsingh Rajput Vs… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2113.15WP

¶2

2024:BHC-AUG:1335

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

1 WRIT PETITION NO. 2113 OF 2015

¶6

NAGNATH VISHVANATH @ VISHAMBARSINGH RAJPUT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

DHONDIBAI ARJUNSINGH RATHOD AND ANOTHER

¶9

Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. S.P.Dhobale

¶10

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 08.01.2024

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings under Section 54 of Civil Procedure Code are pending before the concerned Authority. By the impugned order, the Civil Court has held as under :

¶13

4]Now the point before the executing Court
is that whether or not an application Exh.53
could be entertained by this Court. According
to me, certainly not, because the grounds
alleged in application Exh.53 were available
for JD No.1 since the execution petition is
filed. The execution petition is concluded in
favour of DH No.1 & 2 and that itself has made
it clear that the grounds taken by JD No.1 have
been turned down by the executing Court.

¶14

5]That apart, now it is clear that
execution is satisfied, there remains nothing
with the executing Court. Now the only remedy
is left with JD No.1 to file a civil suit in
the competent Court of civil jurisdiction had
he got any grievance against the order passed
by this Court. There is a reason to hold that
the JD No.1 has made this last and futile

¶15

¶16

2113.15WP

¶17

attempt if the DH away from the very fruits of
the decree by filing an application Exh.53. I
do not find substance in the application
Exh.53. Hence order.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

1An application Exh.53 is rejected.

¶20

2] In the application filed at Exh.53, it is contended by the petitioner that the decree in favour of decree holder nos.1 and 2 be declared in-executable. The Executing Court has already held that the execution petition itself is concluded in favour of decree holder nos.1 and 2 and that ground taken by the decree holder has already been turned down by the Executing Court and execution is already satisfied and that nothing remains with the Executing Court and that remedy, if at all, is available with the judgment debtor to file suit in the competent court. Once the decree is already executed and fully satisfied, the application for declaration that the decree itself is inexecutable, cannot be entertained by the Executing Court. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Executing Court, hence, the present Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶21

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE

¶22

DDC

Nagnath Vishvanath @ Vishambarsingh Rajput v. Dhondibai Arjunsingh Rathod and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagnath Vishvanath @ Vishambarsingh Rajput v. Dhondibai Arjunsingh Rathod and Another

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

Madhuri Alias Mayuri Vishal Beedkar Vs Vishal Bhagwanrao Beedkar

Shantabai Ramrao Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Prakash Dharma Baviskar Vs Ravindra Pralhad Patil and Anr.

Chandrakant Sudhir Bansode Vs Snehal Chandrakant Bansode

Sarita Vinayak Kadu Alias Sarita Ganpat Chillore Vs Vinayak Sadashiv Kadu

Mahesh Vishindas Chandwani Vs Aditya Mookul Marathur