Usha Maruti Jadhav vs Manohar Baburao Dolase — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

Usha Maruti Jadhav vs Manohar Baburao Dolase — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Executing Court's rejection of the petitioner-judgment debtor's objection that the property description in the draft sale deed is not in consonance with the description of the suit property in the agreement to sale warrants interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Court's answer

No infirmity or jurisdictional error is discernible in the impugned order so as to warrant interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's objection was found to be flimsy and repetitive: perusal of the impugned order showed she had expressed readiness to execute the sale deed as per the agreement's description (1/2 portion of Gut No. 281, admeasuring 3 H 18 R (+) 9 R potkharaba, with four boundaries recorded), the 7/12 extract on record confirms her 1/2 share in Gut No. 281 which was the subject matter of the agreement to sale, and a similar objection had already been raised and rejected during execution; she is attempting to protract/hurdle execution of the decree.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution of specific-performance decree (Spl.Civil Suit No. 179 of 2016) via Special Darkhast No. 29 of 2019: upon presentation of the draft sale deed, the judgment debtor (petitioner) objected that the property description did not match the agreement to sale. The Executing Court rejected the objection (order dated 29.01.2026). The High Court (Aurangabad Bench) found the objection flimsy and repetitive — the petitioner had shown readiness to execute per the agreement's description of her 1/2 share in Gut No. 281 (3 H 18 R (+) 9 R potkharaba), confirmed by the 7/12 extract, and an identical objection had earlier been rejected — discerned no infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and rejected Writ Petition No. 2135 of 2026 (S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J., 25.02.2026).

2026:BHC-AUG:8476

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 2135 OF 2026

Usha Maruti Jadhav Age : 66 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Dwarkadish colony, Alamgir Road, House No.456, Bhingar, Ahmednagar Dist. Ahmednagar. … PETITIONER (Orig. J.D.)

VERSUS

Maohar Baburao Dolase, Age : 70 years, Occ. Business, R/o Burud Galli Chowk, Ahmednagar.

... RESPONDENT (Orig. D.H.)

Mr. Vikas S. Bhale, Advocate for Petitioner

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 25^th FEBRUARY, 2026

FINAL ORDER :-

The petitioner impugns order dated 29.01.2026 passed in Special Darkhast No. 29 of 2019. The petitioner is judgment debtor and he suffered a decree of specific performance of contract in Spl.Civil Suit No. 179 of 2016. The respondent filed Special Darkhast No. 29 of 2019. During course of execution, draft of sale deed has been presented to Executing Court. At this stage, petitioner raised objection contending that description of property is not in consonance with description of suit property in agreement to sale,

1 of 2

wp2135.26.odt

which was subject matter of suit. The Executing Court rejected petitioner’s contention by impugned order.

A perusal of impugned order shows that petitioner has shown her readiness to execute sale deed as per description mentioned in agreement to sale. It depicts that petitioner had agreed to sell 1/2 portion out of Gut No. 281, admeasuring 3 H 18 R (+) 9 R potkharaba. The four boundaries of land are also mentioned. The copy of 7/12 extract is available on record which suggest that petitioner has 1/2 share in Gut No. 281 and same was subject matter of agreement to sale. Apparently, petitioner is trying to protract execution proceeding by raising flimsy objection. A similar objection was previously raised by petitioner during course of execution of decree is rejected. The petitioner is repeatedly raising the same objection and trying to hurdle execution of decree.

In that view of matter, no infirmity or jurisdictional error is discernible in impugned order so as to warrant interference of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Hence, Writ Petition stands rejected .

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

ssp

2 of 2

wp2135.26.odt