VILAS BALIRAM KOLIversusKADU LAHANU KOLI SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS BHAULAL KADU KOLI AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:43825



                                                                               43-CA.11207.2026


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11207 OF 2026
                                          IN
                            WRIT PETITION NO.12611 OF 2023

            Vilas s/o. Baliram Koli                                      ..Applicant
                   Vs.
            Kadu Lahanu Koli
            since deceased through L.Rs.
            Bhaulal s/o. Kadu Koli and ors.                              ..Respondents

                                               ----
            Mr.L.V.Sangit, Advocate for applicant
            Mr.P.N.Kutti, Advocate for respondents
                                               ----

                                      CORAM :         AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                      DATE  :         SEPTEMBER 24, 2026
            ORDER :-

                        This Court on 04.09.2026 dismissed the Writ Petition

            No.12611 of 2023     with a reasoned order. The operative part of the

            order dated 04.09.2026 reads thus:-


                                    I.     The Writ Petition stands dismissed with cost
                                    of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited in the Executing
                                    Court by the Petitioner within a period of Four weeks
                                    from today;

                                    II.     If the cost is not deposited within the given
                                    time, the consequences to follow.

                                    III.   The executing machinery shall execute the
                                    possession warrant within a period of Four weeks
                                    from today. The Petitioner shall peacefully handover
                                    the possession of suit property to the respondents.
                                    No separate notice shall be required to the Petitioner
                                    for handing over possession.
                                       2                           43-CA.11207



2.          This Civil Application is taken up on today’s board at the

instance   of    the   applicant/original   petitioner   showing   extreme

urgency.        Vide this application, a prayer is made to stay the

execution of the order passed by this court on 04.09.2026 in Writ

Petition No.12611 of 2023 for a period of eight weeks so as to take

up the judgment and order in challenge.


3.          Mr.Sangit, learned advocate        for the applicant submits

that this prayer was not advanced by him at the time when the

arguments were advanced in the Writ Petition as also on the date on

which the judgment was pronounced in the open court. He would

submit that the applicant has deposited the costs, as was directed, in

the trial court. With this, he prays to allow the present application.


4.          Mr.Kutti, learned advocate for the respondent would

vehemently oppose the application.          He would submit that this is

nothing but another attempt by the applicant to prolong the

execution of the decree. He pertinently submits that neither during

the arguments nor when the judgment was pronounced in the open

court, such prayer was made by the applicants. It is almost twenty

days after the judgment and order was pronounced, such prayer is

being made. He prays to reject the application.
                                        3                              43-CA.11207



5.          Heard learned advocates for the parties extensively. In

the Writ Petition, challenge was to the execution of a possession

decree arising out of a suit of 2001. This court observed that in the

earlier round of a proxy litigation at the behest of the petitioner’s

sons,   execution   was    challenged       by   filing   an   application   for

intervention challenging maintenability on account of jurisdiction.

The said challenge        was rejected.      That, the intervenor         even

challenged the said order before the District Court which was turned

down. Even in the Second Appeal also this court turned down the

said objection. Thereafter, the petitioners filed objection under

Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. With a reasoned order,

this court has observed that the Writ Petition was devoid of any merit

and considering the long standing pendency of the litigation and in

order to save the fruits of justice being defeated, this court

dismissed the Writ Petition. Considering all the facts in totality, in the

open court the executing court was directed to execute the

possession warrant within four weeks and the petitioner was directed

to hand over possession of the suit property to the respondents.
                                    4                         43-CA.11207



6.          For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in

this application. The Civil Application stands dismissed.




                                 [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
                               ………..


KBP