Bombay High Court
KALPANA BHARAT VAISHNAWA AND ANOTHERversusRAMPION FIVEST PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR AMIT ASHOK AGRAWAL
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The order bringing the petitioners on record as legal representatives was not quashed and the writ petition was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, the wife and son of a deceased defendant, challenged an order dated 18 November 2025 that brought them onto the record as legal representatives in an execution proceeding. They argued that they were not representing the estate of the deceased and therefore should not be deemed legal heirs for the purpose of the decree. The trial court had allowed the respondent's application to list the petitioners as legal representatives, noting that the question of their liability would be decided in the execution proceeding. The High Court examined whether the order caused any prejudice to the petitioners and considered the procedural propriety of listing them as heirs. It found that no prejudice resulted from the order and that the issue of liability could be addressed later in the execution process. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the order was left undisturbed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners can be deemed legal representatives of the deceased defendant in the execution proceeding
- Whether the order bringing the petitioners on record as legal representatives should be quashed
Subjects
- legal heirs
- legal representatives
- execution proceeding
- decree
- civil judgment
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:9734
63-wp-2237-2026.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2237 OF 2026
Kalpana Bharat Vaishnawa And Another
VERSUS
Rampion Fivest Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Amit Ashok Agrawal
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Muthiyan Namit Sunil
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 04, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Present petition takes exception to order dated
18.11.2025 passed below Exhibit-8 in Review Application No.02 of
2022 by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon, whereby
petitioners are brought as legal heirs of deceased defendant no.1 on
record in execution proceeding.
2. Mr. Muthiyan, learned advocate appearing for petitioners
submits that petitioners cannot be termed as legal representatives.
They are not representing estate of deceased and without deciding
aforesaid issue, they are brought on record as legal representatives of
defendant no.1. He would, therefore, urge that impugned order is
liable to be quashed and set aside.
3. It is apparent that defendant no.1 is made liable to pay
an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest under decree passed by
Civil Court. The petitioners are admittedly legal heirs (wife and son)
of deceased/defendant no.1. In this background, application was
63-wp-2237-2026.odt
(2)
made on behalf of respondent to bring them on record as legal
representatives. The Trial Court allowed said application observing
that whether legal heirs of deceased defendant no.1 are liable to pay
decreetal amount or not is the question to be decided in execution
proceeding. Apparently, contentions of petitioners are kept open. It is
also open for petitioners to contend before Executing Court that they
are not legal representatives since they are not representing estate of
defendant no.1.
4. In that view of matter, no prejudice is caused to
petitioners by impugned order. In result, writ petition stands rejected.
(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Mujaheed//
Checking your session…