Bombay High Court
RAMESH SITARAM SONI AND ANRversusSHANTIDEVI SHYAMLAL YADAV AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
An executing court cannot go behind a final decree to entertain applications that seek to reopen issues already decided, and the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners sought a stay of execution of a decree in Special Civil Suit No. 521 of 2014, arguing that the trial court had not decided certain issues raised by the judgment debtors, specifically the nature of possession and the defence of ownership. The Civil Judge, Belapur, rejected the application, holding that an executing court cannot revisit matters already decided in the decree. The petitioners appealed, contending that the unresolved issues warranted a stay. The High Court affirmed that the decree had attained finality up to the Supreme Court and that allowing the execution court to re‑examine those issues would exceed its jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no justification to entertain it under its supervisory jurisdiction.
Issues considered
- Whether an executing court can stay execution of a decree on the ground that certain issues were not decided by the trial court
- Whether a decree that has attained finality up to the Supreme Court can be reopened by the executing court
Subjects
- execution of decree
- finality of decree
- civil procedure
- stay of execution
- supervisory jurisdiction
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
MEERA
MEERA MAHESH
MAHESH JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
42-WP-9950-26.DOC
2026.08.21
14:48:44
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9950 OF 2026
Ramesh Sitaram Soni And Anr ...Petitioners
Versus
Shantidevi Shyamlal Yadav And Anr ...Respondents
----------
Mr. Prashant Patil for Petitioners.
-----------
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 18th AUGUST 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 16 th July 2026
passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Belapur, whereby the application
preferred by the Petitioners /original Defendant Nos.1 and 2/Judgment
Debtors Nos.1 and 2 seeking stay to the execution of the decree on the
ground that the issues raised by the Judgment Debtors were not decided
by the Trial Court.
3. In the impugned order, the Learned Civil Judge has encapsulated
the issues raised by the Judgment Debtors as under:
“a) failure of the trial court to determine the nature of
possession and relationship between the parties; and
Meera Jadhav 1/2
42-WP-9950-26.DOC
b) failure to adjudicate the defence of ownership raised by
judgment debtor nos.1 and 2.”
4. The Learned Civil Judge, was persuaded to reject the application
opining that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and allow
the Judgment Debtors to reopen the issues which stood determined.
5. Incontrovertibly, the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.521 of
2014 has attained finality upto the Supreme Court. The aforesaid
questions raised by the Judgment Debtors clearly pertain to the matters
that would necessitate the Executing Court to go behind the decree. The
Learned Civil Judge thus rightly declined to embark upon an inquiry
into those matters as they were beyond the remit of Executing Court.
Hence, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, this Court does not
find any justifiable reason to entertain this Petition.
6. Petition stands dismissed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
Meera Jadhav 2/2
Checking your session…