Bombay High Court

AMOL DILIP SAVARDEversusMOHAN APPANNA CHAMBAR

Disposal: Partly Allowed
Bench: MILIND N JADHAV NANDESH SHANKARRAO DESHPANDE

Holding

The Court held that execution proceedings must be carried out expeditiously and directed the executing court to proceed without undue delay.

Summary

Amol Dilip Savarde, the decree holder, obtained a decree on 2 May 2023 in a summary suit filed in 2019. He filed execution proceedings but faced office objections and delayed action for over three years. The petitioner argued, citing Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418, that execution must be completed expeditiously, preferably within six months. The Court noted the historic principle from Raj Durbhunga v. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Singh (1872) that a decree holder’s disgrace begins at the execution stage. Accepting the petitioner's submissions, the Court directed the executing court to proceed with the execution as quickly as law permits. The writ petition was partly allowed, ordering prompt execution of the decree.

Issues considered

Whether the execution proceedings for a decree obtained in a summary suit must be conducted expeditiously.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a court direction compelling the executing court to act without undue delay.
Applicability of the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi to the present execution proceedings.

Subjects

execution of decree
summary suit
expeditious execution
decree holder rights
Civil Procedure Code
court direction

Judgment

                                                     pra-13-2086-2026.docx



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 WRIT PETITION NO.2086 OF 2026

Amol Dilip Savarde                          … Petitioner
           V/s.
Mohan Appanna Chambar (Chavan)              … Respondent



Mr. Rajvardhan S. Chougule for the petitioner.



                     CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV & NANDESH S.
                               DESHPANDE, JJ.

                     DATED    : JUNE 22, 2026
P.C.:

1.      Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board.


2.      The petitioner is the decree holder having procured a decree

dated 2nd May 2023 in summary suit proceedings instituted in the

year 2019. When the petitioner filed execution proceedings by way

of Special Darkhast, several office objections were raised, but last

more than three years he has wasted time in removal of office

objections on some pretext or other.


3.      Mr. Chougule, learned Advocate for the petitioner, would

submit before the Court and draw our attention to the directions




VRJ                                                                     1
                                                    pra-13-2086-2026.docx


given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah v.

Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors., reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418,

stating that execution proceedings, if at all approached, should be

completed as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six

months, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

Mr. Chougule is at pains to point out that if this Court does not

come to the aid of the decree holder-petitioner, it will take an

insurmountable time for execution of the decree. We agree with

the submissions made by Mr. Chougule. As far back as 1872, in the

case of Raj Durbhunga v. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Singh, 1872

SCC OnLine PC 16 : (1871-72) 14 Moo IA 605 at page 612, the

Privy Council held that the ignominy of the decree holder in this

country begins after he gets the decree and goes in for execution.

The said adage is true even today after more than 152 years.

Here is the case of the          petitioner before us who has

procured a decree in summary suit proceedings and for the past

three      years has failed to even proceed with the first step of

execution.


4.      In that view of the matter, we are inclined to accept the

submissions made by Mr. Chougule and direct the executing Court




VRJ                                                                    2
                                                     pra-13-2086-2026.docx


to proceed with the execution proceedings and to determine the

same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.


5.    The writ petition is partly allowed in the above terms.




(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)                (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)




VRJ                                                                     3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…