Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sangli Zilla Parishad Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited, had advanced a loan to respondent no.1, Ninaidevi Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited. Upon default, the petitioner obtained an award from the Co-operative Court on 30.09.2010 for Rs.11,71,648/- with interest at 16% per annum. The petitioner then filed Execution Application No.2/2012 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Islampur to recover the amount. During the pendency of execution, the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act against respondent no.1, took possession of secured assets, and auctioned them. Respondent no.2, Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Limited, purchased the secured assets and a sale certificate was issued. The petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to implead respondent no.2 as a party to the execution proceedings. The Civil Judge rejected the application on 09.08.2021, holding that execution proceedings are not a trial and Order VI Rule 17 applies only to pleadings in a suit. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming that execution proceedings are not a trial and the amendment would change the nature of the suit. The court noted that the petitioner's remedy, if any, lies elsewhere and not by way of amendment in execution. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution Proceedings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Amendment of Pleadings - Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to add respondent no.2 as party to execution proceedings is not maintainable because execution proceedings are not a 'trial' and Order VI Rule 17 applies only to pleadings in a suit. The court held that the application was rightly rejected as the amendment would change the nature of the suit and introduce a new case. (Paras 2-5)
B) Securitisation - SARFAESI Act - Auction Sale - Impleadment in Execution - A decree holder cannot implead an auction purchaser who purchased secured assets under the SARFAESI Act in execution proceedings without challenging the sale itself. The court held that the petitioner's remedy lies elsewhere, not by way of amendment in execution. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to implead an auction purchaser as a party to execution proceedings is maintainable.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Civil Judge rejecting the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Execution proceedings are not a trial
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC applies only to pleadings in a suit
- amendment cannot be allowed to change the nature of the suit or introduce a new case
- auction purchaser under SARFAESI Act cannot be impleaded in execution without challenging the sale
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (12) 407
Writ Petition No. 7905 of 2023
Mr. Umesh Mankapure a/w Mr. Parth Pitambare a/w Mr. Pankajsinh Deshmukh, Mr. Om Mangave and Adv. Siyal Magdum for Petitioner; Mr. Suryajeet P. Chavan for Respondent No.1; Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Rahul Desai a/w Mr. Prasad Nagargoje, Mrs. Vaishali Shelar i/by Mrs. Shruti Tulpule and Mr. pradeep Salgar for Respondent No.2
Sangli Zilla Parishad Employees, Co-operative Credit Society, Limited, Sangli
Ninaidevi Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Kokarud & Dalmia Bharat sugar and Industrict Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order rejecting application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to implead auction purchaser in execution proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside order dated 09.08.2021 and allow its application to add respondent no.2 as party to execution.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to implead respondent no.2 in execution was rejected by the Civil Judge.
Previous Decisions
Civil Judge Senior Division, Islampur rejected application below Exhibit 64 in Special Darkhast No.2/2012 on 09.08.2021.
Issues
Whether an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is maintainable in execution proceedings.
Whether the auction purchaser under SARFAESI Act can be impleaded in execution without challenging the sale.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that respondent no.2 purchased the secured assets and should be impleaded to recover the decretal amount.
Respondents contended that execution is not a trial and Order VI Rule 17 does not apply; amendment would change nature of suit.
Ratio Decidendi
Execution proceedings are not a trial; Order VI Rule 17 CPC applies only to pleadings in a suit. An amendment under this provision cannot be allowed to change the nature of the suit or introduce a new case. The petitioner's remedy, if any, lies elsewhere.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner impugns order dated 09.08.2021 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Islampur below Exhibit 64 in Special Darkhast No.2/2012, whereby application of petitioner/decree holder under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to add respondent no.2 as party to execution proceeding has been declined.
Execution proceedings are not a trial. Order VI Rule 17 of CPC applies only to pleadings in a suit. The amendment would change the nature of the suit.
Procedural History
Petitioner obtained award from Co-operative Court on 30.09.2010. Filed Execution Application No.2/2012 before Civil Judge Senior Division, Islampur. During execution, secured assets of respondent no.1 were auctioned under SARFAESI Act and purchased by respondent no.2. Petitioner filed application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to implead respondent no.2, which was rejected on 09.08.2021. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.7905 of 2023 before Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 01.12.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VI Rule 17
- Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: Section 13(2)
