Bombay High Court
NARMADABAI KALURAM JADHAV DECD THROU. L.H. THROU. POA M.V. GARUDversusRANGABAI ALIAS LAXMIBAI VITHOBA BHAGAT DECD THROU. L.H. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The stay of execution should be lifted and the pending civil miscellaneous application decided expeditiously, preferably within four months, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s mandate for timely resolution of execution matters.
Summary
The petitioners, representing the estate of Narmadabai Kaluram Jadhav, challenged a stay order issued by the Executing Court that halted the execution of a decree dated 25 October 2002 in RCS No.193/1999. The stay was based on the pendency of Civil Miscellaneous Application No.18/2020, filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking to set aside the stay, arguing that the application had not been progressed expeditiously. The Court noted the Supreme Court’s decision in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418, which mandates that execution petitions be decided within six months. Accordingly, the Court directed that the pending civil miscellaneous application be heard and disposed of as quickly as possible, preferably within four months of the order. The writ petition was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the stay of execution of the 2002 decree, pending a civil miscellaneous application under Section 152 CPC, is justified.
- Whether the pending civil miscellaneous application must be decided within a specific time frame in light of the Supreme Court’s six‑month rule for execution petitions.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 152
Subjects
- execution of decree
- stay of execution
- civil miscellaneous application
- Section 152 CPC
- expeditious hearing
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
30 WP-9017-26.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9017 OF 2026
Narmadabai Kaluram Jadhav
(Deceased) through LRs & ors. ..Petitioners
Versus
Rangabai @ Laxmibai Vithoba Bhagat
deceased through LRs & ors. …Respondents
Dr. Uday P Warunjikar, a/w Ms. Aishwarya R Tuwar, for the
Petitioner.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026
SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE
P.C.:
Digitally signed by
SAINATH SANJAY
BODKHE
Date: 2026.09.24
17:52:13 +0530
1. Heard, Dr. Warunjikar, the learned Counsel for the
petitioners.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that, the Executing
Court has stayed the execution of the decree passed in RCS
No.193/1999 on 25th October, 2002 on account of the pendency
of the Civil Miscellaneous Application No.18/2020 purportedly
preferred under the provisions of Section 152 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the said application, being Civil
Miscellaneous Application No.18/2020, was not being
expeditiously proceeded with. Thus, the petitioner had preferred
SAINATH, PA 1/2
30 WP-9017-26.DOC
an application for setting aside the order staying the execution
of the decree till the decision of the said application. The said
application preferred by the petitioners came to be rejected by
the learned Civil Judge.
3. Since the decree was passed in the year 2002 and the
application seeking modification in the said decree came to be
filed in the year 2020 and in view of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra
Kumar Gandhi & ors.1, the execution petition is required to be
decided within a period of 6 months, the Court seized with Civil
Miscellaneous Application No.18/2020 is requested to hear and
decide the application as expeditiously as possible and,
preferably, within a period of 4 months from the date of
communication of this order.
4. The Writ Petition stands disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
1 (2021) 6 SCC 418
SAINATH, PA 2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.