Bombay High Court

PRAMOD WAMAN PAGAREversusAHILYABAI LAXMAN AWARE AND ANR

Decided: 21 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The stay of execution granted during the pendency of the review petition ceased upon its dismissal, and the executing court must proceed with execution unless a fresh stay is demonstrated.

Summary

The petitioner, Pramod Waman Pagare, sought a direction for the executing court to enforce a decree dated RCS/34/2001. The petitioner argued that the executing court was refusing to execute the decree on the basis that the High Court had stayed the execution during a review petition. The Court noted that the stay was only operative during the pendency of Review Petition (St) No.14019/2024, which was dismissed on 8 August 2025, thereby terminating the stay. Consequently, the executing court cannot refuse execution unless another court issues a fresh stay. The Court directed the petitioner to inform the executing court of the relevant orders and instructed the executing court to post the execution petition and proceed with execution if the respondents fail to produce a new stay, following the Supreme Court’s guidance in Rahul S. Shah v. Jitendra Kumar Gandhi. The petition was disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the execution of the decree remains stayed after the dismissal of the review petition that had earlier stayed it
Whether the executing court must proceed with execution in the absence of a fresh stay order
What procedural steps the executing court should follow to enforce the decree

Subjects

execution of decree
stay of execution
review petition
civil procedure
High Court order
decree enforcement

Judgment

                                                                    12-WP10207-2026.DOC

                                                                                 Santosh

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 10207 OF 2026

                      Pramod Waman Pagare                                  ...Petitioner
                                       Versus
                      Ahilyabai Laxman Aware And Anr                   …Respondents

                      Mr. Ramchandra Wagh, a/w Narayan Rokade, i/b Siddharth
                           Ghodke, for the Petitioner.
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI                                              CORAM:      N. J. JAMADAR, J.
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
                                                      DATED:      21st AUGUST, 2026
Date: 2026.08.25
09:54:42 +0530


                      Oral Order:-

                      1.   Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.


                      2.   A limited prayer in this petition is to direct the Executing

                      Court to execute the decree passed in RCS/34/2001.


                      3.   The grievance of the Petitioner is that, though the second

                      appeal and the review petition preferred by the Judgment

                      Debtors came to be dismissed by the High Court, the trial Court

                      is not proceeding with the execution of the decree on the

                      premise that the     High Court has stayed the execution

                      proceeding.


                      4.   The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invites the attention

                      of the Court to an order dated 3rd April, 2025 passed in Review


                                                    1/3
                                              12-WP10207-2026.DOC

Petition (St) No.14019/2024, whereby execution proceeding was

directed to be stayed till the next date and a subsequent order

dated 8th August, 2025, whereby the said Review Petition (St)

No.14019/2024 came to be dismissed. Evidently, with the

dismissal of Review Petition (St) No.14019/2024 the stay granted

by this Court to the execution proceeding during the pendency

of the review petition, came to an end.


5.   In the face of these orders, the Executing Court cannot

decline to execute the decree unless there is stay to the

execution of the decree by any Court.


6.   The Petitioner is directed to bring to the notice of the

Executing Court, the orders dated 3 rd April, 2025 and 8th

August, 2025 passed in Review Petition (St) No.14019/2024. In

the event the Respondents insist that the execution of the

decree is still remains stayed, it would be for the Respondents –

Judgment Debtors to satisfy the executing Court by placing on

the record of the Executing Court, order passed by any Court

staying the execution of the decree.


7.   The Executing Court is directed to post the execution

petition; Regular Darkhast No.82/2017, on its board on 2 nd

September, 2026 and pass an appropriate order in the light of

the aforesaid observations.
                               2/3
                                              12-WP10207-2026.DOC

8.   If the Respondents fail to demonstrate that there is stay to

the execution of the decree, the Executing Court shall proceed

to execute the decree in conformity with the directions of the

Supreme Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah vs. Jitendra Kumar

Gandhi and others1.

9.   The petition stands disposed.


                                         [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




1    (2021) 6 SCC 418.
                              3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…