Dismissed¶¶25

Sunil Chindhu Palve and Others v. Satish Soma Bhole and Others

Bombay HC22 Jan 2026CA/2691/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution proceedings; possession warrant; de jure possession; panchnama; demolished suit premises; open plot; deceased and absent judgment debtors; bailiff; decree holder application Exhibit-19; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; R.D. No.137 of 1993; 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon; Regular Civil Suit No.75 of 1980; Civil Appeal No.74 of 1985; Writ Petition No.2615 of 1993; Civil Application No.2691 of 2024; deletion of respondent No.4B; High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad; Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J.; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

As the suit premises had been demolished leaving an open plot, only de jure possession could be handed over to the decree holder, and this was duly recorded in the panchnama dated 13.04.2023. ¶¶21

Sunil Chindhu Palve and Others vs Satish Soma Bhole… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 03.04.2023 and 15.04.2023 passed in R.D. No.137 of 1993 — issuance and execution of the possession warrant and the resulting panchnama — are unjustifiable and liable to be set aside because they were passed against deceased judgment debtors and executed in their absence.

¶¶20

Court's answer

As the suit premises had been demolished leaving an open plot, only de jure possession could be handed over to the decree holder, and this was duly recorded in the panchnama dated 13.04.2023.

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

The absence of the judgment debtors at the time of execution, including deceased judgment debtors, does not vitiate the order, as the property was open and there was no obstruction.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

The bailiff acted in accordance with the possession warrant, which was executed by handing over possession to the decree holder.ratio¶¶23
Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there is no reason to interfere with the orders dated 03.04.2023 and 15.04.2023 passed in R.D. No.137 of 1993 by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Bench at Aurangabad), per Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J. (22.01.2026), dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 03.04.2023 and 15.04.2023 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon in R.D. No.137 of 1993, the execution of the decree in Regular Civil Suit No.75 of 1980 and Civil Appeal No.74 of 1985 (the judgment debtor's earlier Writ Petition No.2615 of 1993 having been dismissed by this Court). On the decree holder's application (Exhibit-19), the executing Court issued a possession warrant on 03.04.2023; a panchnama was effected on 13.04.2023 and possession handed over to the decree holder. Held: (i) the suit premises having been demolished and left an open plot, only de jure possession could be and was handed over, duly recorded in the panchnama; (ii) the absence of the judgment debtors at execution, including deceased judgment debtors, does not vitiate the order, the property being open and unobstructed; (iii) the bailiff acted in accordance with the possession warrant. Petition dismissed, no order as to costs. In companion Civil Application No.2691 of 2024, permission was granted to delete respondent No.4B at the petitioners' risk and the application was disposed of.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:3145

¶2

1 914 WP 14326-2023.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

914 WRIT PETITION NO. 14326 OF 2023 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2691 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 14326 OF 2023

¶5

SUNIL CHINDHU PALVE AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶6

SATISH SOMA BHOLE AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr. L.V. Sangit h/f. Ms. M.L. Sangit – Advocate for Petitioners

¶8

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 22.01.2026

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2691 OF 2024

¶11

Learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to delete the

¶12

name of respondent No. 4B.

¶13

Permission is granted.

¶14

The name of respondent No.4B is deleted at the risk of the petitioners. In view thereof, Civil Application is disposed of.

¶15

The necessary amendment shall be carried out within the stipulated period.

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO. 14326 OF 2023

¶17

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.

¶18

2 914 WP 14326-2023.odt

¶19

By way of the present petition, the petitioners challenge the orders dated 03.04.2023 and 15.04.2023 passed in R.D. No.137 of 1993 by the 3^rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the executing Court on 03.04.2023 issued a possession warrant for handing over possession to the decree holder, pursuant to which a panchnama was effected on 13.04.2023 and possession was handed over to the decree holder. He further submits that some of the judgment debtors are dead and some of the owners are not present, therefore, no actual possession could be taken from them. He contends that the order passed against the deceased judgment debtors and the panchanama is, therefore, unjustifiable and liable to be set aside.

¶21

Having considered the submissions, the executing Court, by order dated 03.04.2023, issued a possession warrant, noting that Writ Petition No.2615 of 1993 filed by the judgment debtor challenging the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.75 of 1980 and Civil Appeal No.74 of 1985 had already been dismissed by this Court. The decree holder filed an application (Exhibit-19) seeking the possession warrant of the suit premises. Considering that the premises was demolished and it was a open plot, only dejure possession could be handed over, which was duly recorded in the panchanama on 13.04.2023. The absence of judgment debtors at the time of execution, including deceased debtors,

¶22

3 914 WP 14326-2023.odt

¶23

does not vitiate the order, as the property was open and there was no obstruction. The bailiff acted in accordance with the possession warrant. The possession warrant was executed by handing over the possession to the decree holder and the bailiff reported that the suit premises had already been demolished, leaving an open plot in its place.

¶24

In view of the above, there is no reason to interfere with the orders dated 03.04.2023 and 15.04.2023 passed in R.D. No.137 of 1993 by the 3^rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE

¶27

Pooja Kale/

Sunil Chindhu Palve and Others v. Satish Soma Bhole and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Chindhu Palve and Others v. Satish Soma Bhole and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinod Prakash Gundiwal Died Thr Lr Smanisha Vinod Gudiwal Widow and Others vs Hurjabee Abdul Raheman Died Thr Lrs Abdul Rehman Shaikh Husband and Others

Ramchandra Motiram Gurav vs Vithoba Gangaram Kuchme and Others

The Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation vs Rushikant Mahadeo Mahajan and Others

Jyoti Surendra Sonawane through Gpa Bhimrao Dagdoji Aarak vs the Pankaj Sahakari Grahanirman Sanstha Maryadit Kanchanwadi and Others

Mohan Shaligramji Sonawane Vs Mahant Akhileshwar Guru Raghunathji Alias Jankidas Shri Vaishnav and Others

Jyoti Surendra Sonawane through Gpa Bhimrao Dagdoji Aarak vs the Pankaj Sahakari Grahanirman Sanstha Maryadit Kanchanwadi and Others