Bombay High Court
BEBABAI NAGO MARATHE DIED THR LRS SUMANBAI KASHINATH MARATHEversusAADHAR DONGAR MARATHE DIED THR LRS MAGAN AADHAR MARATHE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court granted a final opportunity to file the say, conditioned on payment of costs and a prohibition on further adjournments.
Summary
The petitioner, a judgment debtor, challenged the lower court’s order rejecting his application for an adjournment to file his say in execution proceedings. The respondents opposed, citing the petitioner’s repeated failure to comply with earlier court orders, including payment of costs and vacating premises. The High Court noted the petitioner’s pattern of delay and non‑compliance but decided to grant one last opportunity to file the say, subject to strict conditions. The court ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,000 to the respondent within a week and an additional Rs. 10,000 for inconvenience, and barred any further adjournments. The petitioner must also inform the trial court of this order before the scheduled execution date. With these directions, the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's application for adjournment in the execution proceedings should be set aside.
- Whether the petitioner should be granted a final opportunity to file his say subject to conditions.
- Whether costs should be imposed on the petitioner for non‑compliance and delay.
Subjects
- execution proceedings
- adjournment
- judgment debtor
- costs
- vacate premises
- say
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42925
1 925.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12732 OF 2026
BEBABAI NAGO MARATHE DIED THR LRS
SUMANBAI KASHINATH MARATHE
VERSUS
AADHAR DONGAR MARATHE DIED THR LRS MAGAN AADHAR
MARATHE AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Laxman Vishnu Sangit
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1a & 2 : Mr. Malte Uday S.
…
CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed below Exhibit
22, wherein the Application seeking time to file say in the execution
proceedings has been rejected vide order dated 10.09.2025.
2. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has placed on record the
earlier orders passed in the earlier Applications filed by the present
Petitioner who is a judgment debtor seeking adjournment in the execution
proceedings filed on 10.09.2025, as well as the order passed thereon on
the very day wherein the Court has recorded that since last three dates,
the judgment debtor is seeking adjournment for say and is not taking
2 925.odt
steps for filing the say. The Application filed by the Petitioner seeking
adjournment discloses that the Advocate on record appearing for the
judgment debtor was out of station. Therefore, the adjournment
Application was filed on 10.09.2025. However, the Court has recorded
that even on the previous three dates, the judgment debtor has failed to
file say and on this background, the Application came to be rejected.
3. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Petitioner needs
to be granted one opportunity to file the say in the execution Application.
The prayer made by the Petitioner is vehemently opposed by the learned
Advocate appearing for all the Respondents, by contending that in spite
of the order passed by this Court on 03.11.2023, observing that the
Petitioner herein who is a judgment debtor is avoiding to comply with the
order passed in the Regular Civil Appeal no. 157/2011, dated 05.04.2016.
This Court has imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/- after observing the conduct
of the present Petitioner and has also granted six months time to vacate
the premises. He has also observed the conduct of the Petitioner more
particularly his failure to vacate the premises as directed by this Court
vide order dated 07.11.2009, and has further directed that the Petitioner
shall vacate the suit premises forthwith.
4. It is submitted that in spite of the orders passed by this Court
3 925.odt
on 03.11.2023, the Petitioner is filing Application and seeking
adjournment, thereby protracting the litigation. He further submits that
neither the Petitioner has paid the costs as directed by this Court vide
order dated 03.11.2023, nor the possession has been handed over by
vacating the premises. In view thereof, it is submitted that no interference
is warranted in the order impugned. Although the submissions made by
the learned Advocate for the Respondents is supported by the various
orders passed by this Court placed on record.
5. In my opinion, it would be appropriate to grant one last
opportunity to the Petitioner to file his say to the execution Application
no. 01/2024, on the condition that the Petitioner shall comply with clause
no. 3 of the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal no. 31/2017,
dated 03.11.2023, by making payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the
Respondent within a period of one week from the date of this order.
6. In addition, the Petitioner shall also pay costs of Rs. 10,000/-
for the inconvenience caused to the Respondent herein and also shall not
seek any adjournment in the execution proceedings pending before the
executing Court, subject to fulfillment of the aforementioned conditions
the liberty to file say is granted. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner
submits that in fact tomorrow itself i.e. on 23.09.2026, the date is fixed
4 925.odt
for execution of the order before the trial Court, the learned Advocate
undertake to inform the trial Court about the order passed by this Court.
7. With the aforementioned directions, Writ Petition stands
disposed of.
( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )
SPC
Checking your session…