Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV
Mohini Resorts Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shankar Godaji Gore – Respondent
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
1. Heard Mr. Thorat, learned Senior Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. None for Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is the main contesting Respondent.
2. From the year 2017, Petition is pending for admission. It is heard today finally at the stage of admission by consent of the parties.
3. This Writ Petition assails the judgment and order dated 07.06.2017 passed by learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune in Application filed below Exhibit-295 in Darkhast No.1032 of 1980. Copy of the order dated 07.06.2017 is appended at Exhibit-L, page No.129 to the Petition.
4. Petitioner is admittedly the Decree Holder and Respondent No.1 is the original Judgement Debtor. Petitioner has filed Darkhast No.1032 of 1980 seeking execution of the decrees dated 05.11.1968 and 21.11.1968.
5. Respondent No.2 is a third-party Applicant who has filed Application below Exhibit-295 in the pending Darkhast proceeding seeking her impleadment. The name of Respondent No.2 is Shyama Shirish Nagarkar alias Asha Patankar. Application is filed through her Power of Attorney holder M/s. Rajkripa Consultancy, a partnership firm.
6. Briefly stated the nexus
The court confirmed that execution proceedings must be confined to recognised parties in the decree, rejecting third-party claims lacking legal standing.
Execution courts can issue possession warrants under CPC for violations of permanent injunctions based on established possession findings.
The court affirmed that mere interest in property does not grant standing to object in execution proceedings if title has been conclusively determined.
Execution of joint decrees remains valid even with subsequent transfers of interest by decree-holders, and a judgment-debtor cannot escape execution by claiming ownership.
A Will concerning ancestral property is invalid if the testator lacks the authority to bequeath the property and fails to prove prior partition among heirs.
The court emphasized the importance of allowing the impleading of parties for proper and effective adjudication of disputes, even if the subsequent purchaser may be bound by the final decree if the s....
Petitioner was having tenancy rights and accordingly, he raised objection before the Executing Court to decide his right of tenancy, therefore, it is necessary for him to produce certain documentary ....
A preliminary decree in a suit for partition merely declares shares that parties are entitled to in any of properties included in plaint schedule and liable to partition--On the basis of a mere decla....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
