Bombay High Court

Maharashtra Through the Secretary Public Works Department MantralayaversusHULE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR VISHWANATH DAGDOBA HULE

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The writ petition is disposed with a direction to the District Judge to decide the pending stay application within four weeks.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra challenged the order of the District Judge, Beed dated 11 March 2025 which refused to extend an ad‑interim stay on a money decree of Rs.95,63,174 with interest. The decree arose from a civil suit against Hule Constructions Pvt Ltd, and the petitioner had initially obtained an ad‑interim stay that was later extended only up to 2 July 2025. After that date, the petitioner applied for a further extension, but the District Judge declined, noting non‑deposit of the decree amount. The High Court, without addressing the merits of the appeal, directed the District Judge to decide the pending stay application expeditiously within four weeks. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed, and the parties were ordered to appear before the District Judge on 1 July 2026 for a hearing on the stay application.

Issues considered

Whether the District Judge should grant a further extension of the ad‑interim stay pending the outcome of the civil appeal
Whether the petitioner’s failure to deposit the decree amount justifies denial of the stay

Subjects

interim stay
money decree
civil appeal
writ petition
court procedure
execution

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:24726
                                                  -1-
                                                                         38-WP-6157-2026

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                38 WRIT PETITION NO. 6157 OF 2026

               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY PUBLIC
                            WORKS DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA
                                       VERSUS
                 HULE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING
                        DIRECTOR MR VISHWANATH DAGDOBA HULE
                                                  ......
              AGP for Petitioner – State : Mr. R. K. Ingole
              Advocate for Respondent : Mr. J. N. Singh
                                                  ...…

                                             CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                              DATED : 22nd JUNE, 2026.
              PER COURT :

              1.          The petitioner impugns order dated 11.03.2025 passed by

              learned District Judge, Beed below Exhibit-15 in Regular Civil Appeal No.

              0044 of 2025, whereby petitioner's prayer for continuation of interim

              stay has been rejected.


              2.          The petitioner suffered a money decree for Rs.95,63,174/-

              along with interest @ 15% per annum. Aggrieved petitioner filed Regular

              Civil Appeal No. 0044 of 2025 before District Judge, Beed along with

              application for stay. Initially learned District Judge passed an order

              granting ad-interim stay to decree under appeal. The order dated

              11.03.2025 passed by Appellate Court depicts that stay was to operate till

              next date of hearing, however, till 02.07.2025, it was extended. However,
                                    -2-
                                                           38-WP-6157-2026

after 02.07.2025 there is no order of further extension. At this stage,

petitioner filed application for further extension of ad-interim relief.

Learned District Judge observed that petitioner has not deposited amount

pursuant to money decree, hence declined continuation of ad-interim

relief.


3.           It can be observed that, petitioner's application seeking stay

to substantive decree is pending before Appellate Court. In this backdrop,

instead of delving into contentions on merits, it would be appropriate, if

learned District Judge is requested to expeditiously decide pending

application filed by petitioner.


4.           In result, Writ Petition stands disposed of with a request to

learned District Judge to decide pending stay application within a period

of four weeks from today.


5.           The parties to appear before learned District Judge on

01.07.2026, who shall decide stay application on its own merits after

hearing both sides.


                                           (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                    JUDGE
Tandale

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…