Bombay High Court
SANYOGITA RAJARAM WALWEKAR AND ORSversusSHALAN SRIDHAR @ MOHAN DEVANGSWAMI AND ORS
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The order fixing the market price for execution of the decree is lawful and not liable to interference.
Summary
The petitioners, judgment debtors, challenged an order dated 12 July 2024 that fixed a market price for executing a decree dated 22 February 2007 in Regular Darkhast No. 103 of 2013. The decree required the prevailing market rate at the time of its passing to be ascertained and reported by the Registrar. The petitioners argued that the price determination should be allowed to be advanced before the executing court and sought interference with the order. The Court examined whether the order was illegal or perverse and found no such infirmity, noting that the decree was final and binding. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, indicating that the petitioners may still raise a grievance about the market rate in the appropriate forum, and affirmed that the decree would be executed as recorded on 22 February 2007.
Issues considered
- Whether the order fixing the market price for execution of the decree is illegal, perverse, or liable to be set aside.
- Whether the petitioners may raise a grievance regarding the prevailing market rate before the executing court.
Subjects
- decree execution
- market price
- writ petition
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- judgment debtor
- regular darkhast
- interference with order
Judgment
21-WP-1458-2026=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1458 OF 2026
Digitally
signed by
UDAY
Sanyogita Rajaram Walwekar and Ors. … Petitioners
UDAY SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI JAGTAP
Vs.
JAGTAP Date:
2026.09.28
10:07:41
+0530 Shalan Sridhar @ Mohan Devangswami and Ors. … Respondents
………….
Mr. Akshay A. Kulkarni a/w Avesh A. Ghadge for the Petitioners
None for the Respondents
………….
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P. C. :
. Heard.
2. The petitioners are assailing the order dated 12.07.2024 passed
below Exh.54 in Regular Darkhast No. 103 of 2013. The petitioners are
the judgment debtors, who suffered decree passed on 22.02.2007 in
R.C.S. No. 357 of 2001 which is sought to be executed in Regular
Darkhast No. 103 of 2013. In pursuance of the decree, application
Exh.54 was filed by respondents decree – holders seeking fixation of
market price. It is allowed by the impugned order.
3. As the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2007 is final and binding
upon the parties, it has to be executed. As per the decree, the prevailing
market rate on the date of its passing, needs to be ascertained and
Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 2
21-WP-1458-2026=.doc
accordingly report is called for from the Registrar. I do not find any
illegality or perversity in the impugned order. No case is made out to
cause interference. However, learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that his submissions regarding price as per the prevailing market
rate could be permitted to be advanced before the executing Court.
4. The Writ Petition is dismissed.
5. It would be open for the petitioners to raise grievance or to place
on record the prevailing market rate, as is permissible in law.
6. Needless to mention that the decree shall be executed as per the
minutes recorded on 22.02.2007.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )
Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 2
Checking your session…