Bombay High Court
SURESH RAJARAM MHATRE AND ORSversusSURESH RAJARAM GUPTA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it would not entertain the challenge as the decree has been pending execution for fourteen years and the related petition had been withdrawn.
Summary
The petitioners, Suresh Rajaram Mhatre & Ors., challenged two orders dated 18 August 2026 issued by the Civil Judge, Bhayandar, which directed police assistance for executing a possession warrant and rejected an application to appoint a Court Commissioner. They argued that there was a serious issue regarding the identity of the flat subject to the decree, contending that the decree holder had sought but not been granted permission to amend the flat description from No.48‑B to No.404‑B. The petitioners also claimed the execution order was a one‑line order lacking reasons and that a related petition filed earlier had been withdrawn. The High Court noted that the earlier petition (WP(st)/22663/2019) was withdrawn and that the decree for possession had been pending execution for fourteen years, concluding that the petition could not be entertained. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with a clarification that any future success in the pending proceeding would not be prejudiced by this order.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners can challenge the execution order on the ground of lack of reasons and a one‑line order.
- Whether an amendment to the description of the suit property is permissible after the decree has been passed.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the prior withdrawal of a related petition.
Subjects
- execution of decree
- possession warrant
- amendment of property description
- Civil Procedure Code
- writ petition
- police assistance
- court commissioner
- withdrawal of petition
Judgment
32-WP-11773-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11773 OF 2026
Suresh Rajaram Mhatre & Ors. ..Petitioners
Versus
Suresh Rajaram Gupta & Ors. …Respondents
Mr. Raju Suryawanshi, for the Petitioners.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER 2026
Oral Order :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 18 th
August, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mira-
SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE
Bhayandar, whereby Police aid was directed to be given for the
Digitally signed by
SAINATH SANJAY
BODKHE
Date: 2026.10.03
12:24:13 +0530
execution of possession warrant in Regular Darkhast
No.01/2026 (arising out of old Regular Darkhast No.348/2012),
and another order dated 18th August, 2026 whereby an
application preferred by the judgment debtor to appoint a Court
Commissioner to visit the building in which the suit flat is
situated and submit a report to the Court, came to be rejected.
3. Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned Counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that there is a serious issue about the identity of the
SAINATH, PA 1/3
32-WP-11773-2026.DOC
flat in respect of which the decree is passed in favour of the
decree holder. Attention of the Court was invited to an
application (Exh.33) preferred in Regular Darkhast No.348/2012
whereby the decree holder sought to amend the description of
the suit property furnished in clause 10 of the Darkhast
application so as to correct the Flat No.48-B to 404-B in
Rushabh Plaza building instead of Amit Varsha building. It was
submitted that, the Court had only permitted the decree holder
to bring the legal representatives on record by an order dated
26th October, 2018, and express permission for amendment to
correct the description of the suit property was not granted.
4. It is pertinent to note, a petition, being
WP(st)/22663/2019, assailing the said order was filed and, on
17th September, 2025, the said petition came to be disposed as
withdrawn. Thus, it is now not open for the petitioners to assail
the said order on the ground that, the Executing Court has not
ascribed reasons and had passed a one line order.
5. In the impugned order dated 18th August, 2026 passed on
the application (Exh.46) preferred by the petitioners – judgment
debtors, in Paragraph No.13, the learned Judge has recorded
that, the execution proceeding was amended to describe the suit
property as Flat No.404.
SAINATH, PA 2/3
32-WP-11773-2026.DOC
6. In these circumstances, at this stage, since the decree for
delivery of possession of the subject flat has been awaiting
execution for 14 years, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
petition.
7. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
8. It is clarified that, in case the petitioners succeed in the
pending proceeding, the petitioners can be appropriately
restituted, and the observations in this order will not be
construed against the petitioners while deciding the said
proceeding on its own merits and in accordance with law.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH, PA 3/3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.