Dhaval Anand Shah vs Rishi Balwantrai Thakkar — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dhaval Anand Shah vs Rishi Balwantrai Thakkar — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned orders dated 14 January 2026 and 26 February 2026 quashed and set aside (by consent); decree-holder's arrest-warrant application restored to the Executing Court; Petitioner/Judgment Debtor to appear on 6 May 2026 and file a reply within one week; Executing Court to decide the application afresh after hearing, preferably within four weeks; Respondents at liberty to file an additional affidavit.

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 14 January 2026 and 26 February 2026 passed by the Executing Court (City Civil Court, Mumbai) issuing a warrant of arrest against the Petitioner under Order 21 Rule 30 CPC were liable to be quashed.

Court's answer

Having regard to the nature of the orders passed by the Executing Court, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the Respondents, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The Respondent/Decree Holder's application for issuance of arrest warrant stands restored to the file of the Executing Court.

Key takeaways

The Petitioner/Judgment Debtor shall appear before the Executing Court on 6 May 2026 and file a reply to the application for issuance of the warrant of arrest within one week thereafter.ratio¶19
The Executing Court is requested to decide the arrest-warrant application afresh, after providing the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), N. J. Jamadar, J., 21 April 2026: Writ Petition No. 4429 of 2026 by the Judgment Debtor (Dhaval Anand Shah) challenging orders dated 14 January 2026 and 26 February 2026 of the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Execution Application No.0100362 of 2024, whereby a warrant of arrest was issued against him under Order 21 Rule 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. With the consent of the Respondent's counsel, the impugned orders were quashed and set aside; the Decree Holder's warrant application was restored to the Executing Court; the Judgment Debtor was directed to appear on 6 May 2026 and file a reply within one week; the Executing Court was requested to decide the application afresh after hearing, preferably within four weeks; the Respondents were permitted to file an additional affidavit. The petition stands disposed. No adjudication on the merits of warrant issuance under Order 21 Rule 30 CPC.

44-WP-4429-2026-MODIFIED.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 4429 OF 2026

Dhaval Anand Shah ..Petitioner Versus Rishi Balwantrai Thakkar …Respondent

..Petitioner

Mr. Rohit Agarwal, with Pratik Barot, i/b Kruti Bhavsar, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Vijay M Vaghela, for the Respondent.

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 21^st APRIL 2026

ORAL ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

Digitally signed byARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2026.05.07 09:02:12 +0530

The challenge in this petition is to the orders dated 14^th January 2026 and 26th February 2026 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai in Execution Application No.0100362 of 2024, whereby a warrant of arrest came to be issued against the Petitioner under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Petitioner thereafter appeared before the learned Executing Court and sought a stay to the execution of the said warrant. However, the matter came to be adjourned to 4^th April 2026.

ARS (Corrected order as per speaking to the Minutes of the Order dated 4^th May 2026) 1/2

44-WP-4429-2026-MODIFIED.DOC

Having regard to the nature of the orders passed by the Executing Court, with the consent of the learned counsel for the Respondents, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside.

The application filed by the Respondent/Decree Holder for issuance of arrest warrant stands restored to the file of the Executing Court.

The Petitioner/Judgment Debtor shall appear before the Executing Court on 6^th May 2026 and file a reply to the application for issuance of the warrant of arrest within one week thereafter.

The Executing Court is requested to decide the application for issuance of the arrest warrant afresh, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter.

The Respondents are at liberty to file an additional affidavit.

The petition stands disposed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

ARS (Corrected order as per speaking to the Minutes of the Order dated 4^th May 2026) 2/2