Bombay High Court

KALWA CO-OP. HOUSING SOC. LTD.versusSAGARDEEP CO-OP. HSG. SOC. AND ANR

Decided: 22 June 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SANDEEP V MARNE

Holding

The High Court held that it would not interfere with the executing court's order permitting amendment of the Darkhast and disposed of the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Kalwa Co-Op Housing Society Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order of the executing court that allowed the respondent society to amend its Darkhast to include an additional mode of execution. The petitioner contended that the execution proceedings were not maintainable because the respondent was not the decree-holder but a judgment-debtor, and that the earlier judgment dated 29 November 2012 did not grant any relief that could be executed. The court noted that the merits of the added prayer could not be decided at the interlocutory stage and that the executing court would consider the petitioner's objections during the execution process. Emphasising the need for speedy disposal, the High Court declined to interfere with the amendment order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed, and the executing court was directed to give due priority to the pending regular Darkhast No. 65 of 2017.

Issues considered

Whether the execution proceedings are maintainable when the respondent is a judgment-debtor and not the decree-holder.
Whether the executing court can permit amendment of a Darkhast to add an additional mode of execution at this stage.

Subjects

execution of decree
decree-holder
judgment-debtor
writ petition
civil appellate jurisdiction
darkhast amendment
priority of execution

Judgment

Vaishnavi                                               36-WP-6949-2019.docx


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                   WRIT PETITION NO. 6949 OF 2019



Kalwa Co-Op. Housing Soc. Ltd.                         ...Petitioner


                   V/s.


 Sagardeep Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. and Anr                  ...Respondents
                              _______________

Mr. Laxman S. Deshmukh, for Petitioner.
Mr. Girish M. Joshi, for Respondent No.1-Society.
                               ______________

                               CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                               DATED: 22 JUNE 2026.


P.C.:


1)           By the impugned order, the Executing Court has merely
permitted the Respondent No.1-Society to amend the Darkhast for
adding a prayer for another mode for execution. Whether there is any
merit in the added prayer or not cannot be decided at this stage.


2)           Mr. Deshmukh, the          learned   counsel   appearing    for
Petitioner, submits that the execution proceedings themselves are not
maintainable since Respondent No.1-Society is not the Decree-Holder
and in fact, a Judgment-Debtor. He submits that under the judgment and
order dated 29 November 2012, no relief is granted in favour of


                               Page No. 1 of 2
                               22 JUNE 2026
Vaishnavi                                                36-WP-6949-2019.docx


Respondent No.1-Society which is capable of being executed by the
Executing Court. I am sure that the Executing Court would decide these
objections raised by the Petitioner while deciding the execution
proceedings. As of now, this Court is not interfering in the impugned
order to ensure quicker disposal of the execution proceedings.


3)           With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed
of. The Executing Court shall accord due priority for expeditious disposal
of Regular Darkhast No. 65 of 2017.


                                                 [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




                               Page No. 2 of 2
                               22 JUNE 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…