Parvati Kedarinath Jadhav vs Nirmalaben Shambhu Prasad Patel Since Decd. Thr. Lrs and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Parvati Kedarinath Jadhav vs Nirmalaben Shambhu Prasad Patel Since Decd. Thr. Lrs and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed. The Court did not grant status quo, but directed the learned District Judge to pass an appropriate order on the petitioner's pending status quo application (Exh. 34) in RCA No. 52/2022 as expeditiously as possible, preferably on 18 June 2026, and requested the learned District Judge to hear and decide RCA No. 52/2022 as expeditiously as possible.

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should grant status quo during the pendency of RCA No. 52/2022, given that the status quo order dated 07 May 2024 was not extended by a formal order and there has been a time lag since then.

Court's answer

If status quo was continuously extended by the learned District Judge on the petitioner's successive applications, it was incumbent on the petitioner to seek extension by filing applications after 07 May 2024 as well; in view of the time lag, this Court cannot consider the prayer for grant of status quo at this stage.

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner's application for grant of status quo (Exh. 34) in RCA No. 52/2022 awaits decision, the learned District Judge was directed to pass an appropriate order on that application as expeditiously as possible, preferably on 18 June 2026, the date on which RCA No. 52/2022 is listed.

Key takeaways

The learned District Judge was requested to make an endeavor to hear and decide RCA No. 52/2022 as expeditiously as possible.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N. J. Jamadar, J.) disposed of a writ petition by Parvati Kedarinath Jadhav challenging an order dated 18 March 2026 of the learned District Judge calling upon the respondent to file a reply to the petitioner's application for status quo during the pendency of RCA No. 52/2022 — an appeal preferred against an Executing Court order under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Observing that status quo granted by order dated 07 May 2024 had thereafter been extended only orally and that the petitioner ought to have sought formal extensions after that date, the Court held that, in view of the time lag, it could not consider the prayer for grant of status quo at that stage. Instead, since the petitioner's status quo application (Exh. 34) in RCA No. 52/2022 remained undecided, the learned District Judge was directed to pass an appropriate order on it as expeditiously as possible, preferably on 18 June 2026 when the appeal was listed, and was requested to endeavour to hear and decide RCA No. 52/2022 itself as expeditiously as possible.

30 WP-6488-26.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 6488 OF 2026

Parvati Kedarinath Jadhav Versus

Nirmalaben Shambhu Prasad Patel since decd. through LR’s & Ors.

..Petitioner

…Respondents

Mr. Vikas Kolekar, for the Petitioner.

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 08^th JUNE 2026

P.C.:

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 18^th March, 2026 passed by the learned District Judge whereby the learned District Judge called upon the respondent to file reply to

an application filed by the petitioner to grant status quo during the pendency of RCA No. 52/2022.

The said appeal has been preferred by the petitioner/appellant, aggrieved by an order passed by the Executing Court under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Mr. Kolekar submitted that, initially status quo was granted till next date by an order dated 07^th May, 2024. Thereafter, the status quo was orally extended.

1/3

SAINATH, PA

30 WP-6488-26.DOC

Since the status quo has not been extended by an order, the Executing Court is proceeding with the execution of the decree. Therefore, it is necessary to grant the status quo, submitted Mr. Kolekar.

If the status quo was continuously extended by the learned District Judge by passing orders on the successive applications submitted by the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to seek extension of status quo by filing applications after 07^th May, 2024, as well. Thus, at this stage and especially in view of the time lag, this Court cannot consider the prayer for grant of the status quo.

Nonetheless, since the petitioner has filed an application for grant of status quo and the said application awaits decision by the learned District Judge, it would be in the fitness of things to direct the learned District Judge to pass an appropriate order on the application for grant of status quo (Exh. 34) in RCA No. 52/2022 as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, on 18^th June, 2026 on which date the RCA No. 52/2022 is listed before the learned District Judge.

The learned District Judge is also requested to make an endeavor to hear and decide the RCA No. 52/2022 as expeditiously as possible.

2/3

SAINATH, PA

30 WP-6488-26.DOC

The Writ Petition stands disposed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

3/3

SAINATH, PA