Case Note & Summary
The writ petition arose from execution proceedings in a specific performance suit that was decreed in 1977 and confirmed in 1982. The respondent (decree holder) had filed execution in 1978, but the proceedings had not concluded by 2025. The decree required N.A. permission, which the Collector rejected on the ground that the suit property was earmarked for service industry. The petitioners, legal representatives of the original judgment debtor, challenged an order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the executing court below Exhibits-243 and 248. The Bombay High Court issued Rule and, with consent of parties, took up the matter for final hearing at the admission stage. No further substantive decision was recorded in the available text.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decrees - Delay in Execution - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The execution of a decree for specific performance passed in 1977 and confirmed in 1982 has remained pending for decades, illustrating the issue of delay in execution proceedings. (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
WRIT PETITION NO.7127 OF 2025
Final Decision
The High Court issued Rule, made it returnable forthwith, and with consent of parties, took up the matter for final hearing at the admission stage.
Law Points
- Execution of decrees
- specific performance of contract
- delay in execution
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (06) 7
Writ Petition No. 7127 of 2025
Mr. Girish S. Rane for Petitioners, Mr. V. B. Patil for Respondent No.1
Prakash Vitthal Kale (Deceased) through Legal Representatives Smt. Ashalata Prakash Kale, Rajnikant Prakash Kale, Sangita Ganesh Phirke, Chandrashekhar Prakash Kale, Yuvraj Prakash Kale
Maharashtra Pulse Mills, Jalgaon, Sunil Vitthal Patil, Sultan Babmiya Patel, Shaligram Raghunath Kale, Ramesh Ramdas Narkhede
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the executing court in execution of a decree for specific performance of contract.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash and set aside the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Jalgaon, below Exhibits-243 and 248 in Regular Darkhast No.152/2012.
Previous Decisions
The original suit (Special Civil Suit No.4/1975) was decreed for specific performance on 30.07.1977 by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Jalgaon. The decree was confirmed by the Bombay High Court on 23.06.1982. Execution (Special Darkhast No.2/1978) was filed and renumbered as Regular Darkhast No.152/2012. N.A. permission required under the decree was rejected by the Collector.
Judgment Excerpts
The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated 18.02.2025 passed below Exhibits-243 and 248 in Regular Darkhast No.152/2012 pending before 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon.
This litigation is classic example as to how litigant can drag execution of decree from stage of preliminary decree to final decree in suit for specific performance of contract.
Procedural History
Special Civil Suit No.4/1975 was filed by respondent no.1 and decreed for specific performance on 30.07.1977. The decree was confirmed by the Bombay High Court on 23.06.1982. Execution was filed in 1978 and remains pending as Regular Darkhast No.152/2012. N.A. permission was rejected by the Collector. On 18.02.2025, the executing court passed an order below Exhibits-243 and 248. The petitioners (judgment debtors) filed the present writ petition challenging that order. The High Court issued Rule and took up the matter for final hearing.
