Bombay High Court
APURVA JAYANTILAL SHAHversusALKA JAYANTILAL SHAH AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- N JAMADAR
Holding
The petition is disposed with liberty to file a review application before the City Civil Court.
Summary
The petitioner, Apurva Jayantilal Shah, filed a writ petition challenging clauses 3 and 4 of an order that directed the execution court to act on a notice of motion filed by the respondents, who are judgment debtors. The petitioner argued that those directions were unnecessary and beyond the scope of the notice of motion, and offered to produce the certified plaint and written statement before the execution court. The petitioner also sought permission to withdraw the petition and instead file a review application before the City Civil Court. The Court, after considering the submissions, disposed of the petition, granting liberty to file a review application and directing the lower court to consider the merits of that application. The Court noted that any limitation issue could be dealt with under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Issues considered
- The propriety of the directions in clauses 3 and 4 of the impugned order
- Whether the directions were within the scope of the notice of motion filed by the respondents
- Whether the petitioner may withdraw the petition and file a review application
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XXI Rule 29
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. Section 14
Subjects
- civil procedure
- execution proceedings
- review application
- limitation
- writ petition
Judgment
10-WP-16901-2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16901 OF 2025
Apurva Jayantilal Shah ..Petitioner
Versus
Alka Jayantilal Shah and Ors. …Respondents
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, for the Petitioner.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 02nd FEBRUARY 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
directions in clause 3 and 4 of the impugned order were
uncalled for in the backdrop of the Notice of Motion taken out by
Digitally signed
SANTOSH SUBHASH
by SANTOSH
the judgment debtor for stay of the execution proceedings under
SUBHASH KULKARNI
KULKARNI Date: 2026.02.03
12:11:57 +0530
Order XXI Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The
learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that, the
entire record was before the Executing Court and, in any event,
the petitioner is willing to produce the certi>ed copy of the
plaint and written statement before the Executing Court.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to
withdraw the petition with liberty to >le a review application
before the learned Judge, City Civil Court.
SAINATH 1/2
10-WP-16901-2025.DOC
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the petition stands
disposed with liberty to >le a review application before the
learned Judge, City Civil Court.
5. In the event, such an application is >led, the learned
Judge, City Civil Court is requested to consider the same on its
own merits, after adverting to the contentions of the petitioner
that, the directions in the clause 3 and 4 of the impugned order
were uncalled for and beyond the scope of the prayers in the
Notice of Motion >led on behalf of the respondents-judgment
debtors.
6. The time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting this
petition, may be accounted for under Section 14 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, in the event the question of limitation
arises.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH 2/2
Checking your session…