Bombay High Court

DHANANJAY SHAMRAO PATILversusSUVARNA DHANANJAY PATIL AND OTHERS

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the execution proceedings were valid, there was no jurisdictional error, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Dhananjay Shamrao Patil, challenged an order dated 17-12-2025 that allowed execution proceedings against him for a decree modified by the appellate court in 2014. The petitioner argued that the decree holder had previously filed execution proceedings that were not taken to logical end, and contended that filing new execution proceedings after earlier ones were dismissed was impermissible and beyond the court's jurisdiction. The petitioner sought interference with the order, claiming an error of jurisdiction by the trial judge. The High Court examined the claim and noted that the execution petition was filed within the limitation period and that the earlier abandoned proceedings did not bar a fresh execution suit. The Court found no error of jurisdiction or illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether successive execution proceedings may be filed after earlier execution proceedings were dismissed
Whether the trial court erred in jurisdiction by allowing the execution proceedings

Subjects

execution of decree
jurisdiction
civil procedure
writ petition
limitation period

Judgment

                                                   55-WP-781-2026 (C).doc




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 781 OF 2026

Dhananjay Shamrao Patil                                          ...Petitioner
     Versus
Suvarna Dhananjay Patil And Others                           ...Respondents

                                  …..
Adv. Nikhil N. Pawar (through V.C.), Advocate for Petitioner.
                                  …..


                                    CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                    DATE    : 18th AUGUST, 2026.

P.C. :

           Heard Mr. Nikhil N. Pawar, learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner.

2.         The petition is directed against the order dated 17.12.2025

passed below Exhibit – 42 in Special Darkhast No.27 of 2023.

3.         The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

respondent/decree holder had filed successive execution proceedings

but had not taken any of them to logical end. It is impermissible to file

the execution proceedings once earlier proceedings are dismissed. It is

submitted that the impugned order is vulnerable and interference is

required. It is further submitted that the trial Judge has committed error




     ZIP                                                             1 of 2
                                                      55-WP-781-2026 (C).doc


of jurisdiction.

4.         The petitioner is the original defendant No.1 who suffered decree

in Special Civil Suit No.2 of 2003. Being aggrieved, Regular Civil Appeal

No.52 of 2006 was preferred which was allowed partly on 06.11.2014.

The decree modified by the Appellate Court is sought to be executed by

Special Darkhast No.27 of 2023.

5.         On earlier occasion, attempts to execute the decree were made,

but those proceedings were not taken to the logical end for some reason

or other. The decree passed by the Appellate Court is remained

unexecuted. The execution proceedings is preferred within limitation

and therefore, the objections of the petitioners unformed and liable to

be thrown out.

6.         The Executing Court has taken a plausible and reasonable view. I

do not find any error or jurisdiction or illegality in the impugned order.

The writ petition is dismissed.



                                               [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]




     ZIP                                                                2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…